# Was the "Christianisation" of the later Roman Empire a victory for the church?



## dnlcnwy (Jun 6, 2021)

I was in a discussion on another post about the fullness of the gentiles coming into the church. It was not the main thrust of his thesis, but he did take the position that the purported conversion of the later Roman Empire to Christianity was a great victory for the church as part of his thesis. I disagreed strongly with this position. I am of the opinion that the vast majority of the later Empire was Christian in name only and that the adoption of Christianity by the Emperor Constantine was a thinly disguised effort to prop up a decaying State by fusing it with the largest functioning organization in the Empire. I believe the historical record backs me up on this. I am curious how the opinions of the other board members here, most of whom are quite well educated in church history, fall out on this issue.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## earl40 (Jun 6, 2021)

Humm our brothers and sisters escape the lion's mane, the burning stake, etc. etc. etc.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## dnlcnwy (Jun 6, 2021)

earl40 said:


> Humm our brothers and sisters escape the lion's mane, the burning stake, etc. etc. etc.


Had Constantine stopped with the edict of toleration I would be in 100% agreement with you. But he didn't. He went on to involve the State in what were strictly church affairs for the sake of having a monolithic religion in his empire. They eventually wound up trying to force Arianism on the church, a heresy that would have certainly sent people to eternal burning even if they were spared burning by the State.


----------



## Phil D. (Jun 6, 2021)

As with most dominant personalities there are pros and cons regarding Constantine's effect on Christianity. Once again I find Schaff's account of Constantine to be helpfully even-handed, articulate, thoughtful, and mindful of Providence. Here's a brief excerpt from his introduction.
​The last great imperial persecution of the Christians under Diocletian and Galerius, which was aimed at the entire uprooting of the new religion, ended with the edict of toleration of 311 and the tragical ruin of the persecutors. The edict of toleration was an involuntary and irresistible concession of the incurable impotence of heathenism and the indestructible power of Christianity. It left but a step to the downfall of the one and the supremacy of the other in the empire of the Caesars.​​This great epoch is marked by the reign of Constantine I. He understood the signs of the times and acted accordingly. He was the man for the times, as the times were prepared for him by that Providence which controls both and fits them for each other. He placed himself at the head of true progress, while his nephew, Julian the Apostate, opposed it and was left behind. He was the chief instrument for raising the church from the low estate of oppression and persecution to well deserved honor and power. For this service a thankful posterity has given him the surname of the Great, to which he was entitled, though not by his moral character, yet doubtless by his military and administrative ability, his judicious policy, his appreciation and protection of Christianity, and the far-reaching consequences of his reign. His greatness was not indeed of the first, but of the second order, and is to be measured more by what he did than by what he was.​​...At the same time, however, Constantine stands also as the type of an undiscriminating and harmful conjunction of Christianity with politics, of the holy symbol of peace with the horrors of war, of the spiritual interests of the kingdom of heaven with the earthly interests of the state.​​In judging of this remarkable man and his reign, we must by all means keep to the great historical principle, that all representative characters act, consciously or unconsciously, as the free and responsible organs of the spirit of their age, which moulds them first before they can mould it in turn, and that the spirit of the age itself, whether good or bad or mixed, is but an instrument in the hands of divine Providence, which rules and overrules all the actions and motives of men.​​

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 7, 2021)

Neither scenario was perfect. Constantine was a brilliant politician and terrible church man. He didn’t ruin the church. He got rid of old difficulties and introduced new ones

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## Jeri Tanner (Jun 7, 2021)

The Lord in history seems to provide periods of peace through the magistrate for the church in which the church is favored or even established, and during which times there is the space for the church to reform, to hold councils, to think, write, debate, hammer out what's needed. During those times, rulers are acting as nursing fathers and mothers to the church for her good. Human nature being corrupt, those times so far have ended in curruption. But their good beginnings is a gift from God to his people.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 7, 2021)

I think the notion of "victory of the church" is incoherent _unless_ one is thinking eschatologically. Practically any engagement the church has with and in this world/age must, in the nature of the case, be a mixed bag.

I would love to call the 16th C. Reformation an unqualified "triumph of the gospel." I think a strong case can be made that it ranks with the creedal achievements of the 3rd & 4th C.'s as a high-water-mark of the church in this age. There was a glorious recovery of vital strength and pure marks of the church. But, insofar as it stands among man's works, everything in it that bears the imprint of the flesh is imperfect and will be burned up.

The same must be said of the Constantinian settlement. While there should be thanksgiving upraised to God for giving a period of "rest" to his church (before the end of time), to the extent that such respite clouded the mind of the church (in its members) that the battle was done, the warfare past, so much was the "fighting edge" of the church lost. Taming or making peace with the Beast is deceptive or foolish, probably both.

The Beast dies: it succumbs to a rival Beast, or it sickens or ages into ruin. Its next rise is like a "resurrection"--we act amazed that the thing has come back, and its nature is unchanged! But it should be no surprise at all. We cannot change, nor tame, its nature; and the church makes peace with it on terms at its peril.

Coming to terms with this finally cured me of a mild dalliance with postmillenialism, even "optimistic amillenialism." Premillenialism/chilliasm was never anything to me but a curiosity; reading HalLinsey as a 10yr old was like getting an inoculation for that illness. The nature of the Beast is fallen human nature. Putting Christians in charge barely moves the needle toward social or collective "good," when we end up with the spectacle of Christians arguing with other Christians each side invoking the Faith to justify their position and condemn the other side.

Understand the social realities under which we live as part of the nature of this passing-away world. The church is salt and leaven, it is not the dough. It is not going to change the nature of the dough. Its effect on the dough is sometimes not precisely predictable. Other variables such as the temperature of the oven or the composition of the flour affect the outcome. The world is what it is; and we as Christians should adjust to it where we can, calling people out of it, and influencing it gently while maintaining unchanged what it is we are. Typically, the church is too busy acting like Israel in the days of the Judges....

The church's presence in the first four Centuries A.D. had an effect on the state-outcome by the time of Constantine. The change in conditions introduced a new environment, in which some things changed for the better, and other things changed for the worse. The same thing is always happening, anywhere the church is planted while history rolls on. Jesus alone has command of history.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## dnlcnwy (Jun 7, 2021)

Thanks to all for your erudite observations. I want to state flatly that I do not think that the light of the church was completely obscured by it's dependence upon the State during the period of the later Empire. God always preserves a remnant. I take issue with the implication (and perhaps I am wrong in reading it into the discourse) that it is either one set of difficulties or another, either persecution or co-option. I restate and emphasize, it would have been ideal if Constantine had stopped with the edict of toleration. That would have given the Church the breathing room it needed to pull together the bible and formulate it's doctrines without inculcating State dependence and even State worship into it's culture. Perhaps it would even have led to a true re-vitalization of Roman culture that would have prevented it's decline and fall. Let us all take a moment and give thanks that we have something like tolerant indifference with equal protection under the law here in the United States. This is not to imply that the sin of State worship (or party worship) does not go on in the church in the U.S., only that it is not mandated by law.


----------



## Schoolman (Jun 7, 2021)

Here are some thoughts.

I am addressing 312 to 800 AD as the era of the high tide of the East Church. This was launched by Constantine’s adoption of Christianity for the whole empire and the relocation of the capital to Byzantium.

Constantine called the Council of Nicaea in 325 which condemned Arianism.

Constantine may have softened his stance against Arianism for political reasons, but he died in 337; Arianism disappeared by 671.

Until Constantine’s conversion at the Milvian Bridge, the church had endured horrific persecution followed by the problem of the traditores and Donatists. The cessation of persecution alone was a great triumph.

Now at the time, the empire itself was dying, prompting Constantine’s move to Byzantium. However, after the conversion and thanks to Christianity, the empire lasted another 1000 years, during which Augustine proposed that the millennium of Scripture did apply to that contemporary kingdom. That represents another triumph.

The era of the East Church can be compared to the letter to Pergamum in Revelation.

The church of the time did face serious troubles, heresies, and idolatry, but Christ did “fight with the sword of my mouth,” with Scripture. That may be typified by the preaching of John Chrysostom.

But the most important achievement of that earthly kingdom during the age of the East Church, is the defeat of the Persian Empire, which embodied the archetype of Babylon. The gospel had reached (with roots in Daniel’s time) deep into the Persian Empire and beyond, but unlike the Romans, the Persians never formally adopted the faith for their national household, instead creating the impure hybrid of Zoroastrianism.

That leads to the observation that a true and lively faith in individuals happens most often in Christian households, whether of the family or the nation. This is one reason why that the covenants are established with families and nations, and why Christian parents must seal their children in those covenants.

On the Roman Empire of his time, Augustine writes—

“Thus, when illustrious kingdoms had long existed in the East, God willed that there should arise in the West an empire which, though later in time, should be more illustrious still in the breadth and greatness of its sway. And, in order that it might overcome the grave evils which had afflicted many other nations, He granted it to men who, for the sake of honour and praise and glory, so devoted themselves to their fatherland that they did not hesitate to place its safety before their own, even though they sought glory for themselves through it. (V,13)

“Moreover, it was not only for the sake of rendering due reward to the citizens of Rome that her empire and glory were so greatly extended in the sight of men. This was done also for the advantage of the citizens of the eternal City during their pilgrimage here. It was done so that they might diligently and soberly contemplate such examples, and so see how great a love they owe to their supernal fatherland for the sake of life eternal, if an earthly city was so greatly loved by its citizens for the sake of merely human glory. (V,16)” (Augustine. City of God, Cambridge edition, loc. 358, 359)

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## dnlcnwy (Jun 7, 2021)

My knowledge of early State sponsored Christianity does not extend into the Byzantine period. Therefor I cannot challenge your characterization of State sponsored Christianity as benevolent for the Byzantine empire. I can quote a scholar of the period prior to the fall of Rome however. "The price paid for the restoration of the Empire was twofold. First, the absolute State had come, catering for the population at large, schematic, appealing to mass intelligence. Second, a complete State-socialism was in force, with which it's terrorism by officials, it's over-emphasized restrictions on the individual, it's progressive State interference, and it's burdensome taxation and liturgies, previously not so clearly defined, and it's methods of realizing it's demands, acted very much as before, except insofar as it's union with the Christian church, from the time of Constantine, gave the system a religious veneer, and stamped subjection as resignation to the will of God." This quote is from the Cambridge Ancient History, hardly a revisionist source. This does not sound like the kind of society Christ wanted for his church and it is certainly not the kind of society I would want to live in. Now maybe things improved after the fall of Rome, that is a matter for further research on my part, but I stand by my assertion that the Empire from the time of the Imperial Crisis to the fall of Rome was NOT an ideal that we should cite approvingly.


----------



## Schoolman (Jun 7, 2021)

Without historical context and immediate context, such as information about the chapter, organization of the volume, dates, and a precise citation, it is impossible to respond to the quotation. I don’t see a Kindle version and the print version is expensive, so it seems to be unverifiable.

However, each of the letters to the seven churches in Revelation includes criticism and applause, warnings and commendation. Pergamom received both praise and warning, for example, and that letter can be applied to the East Church from 312 to 800. Everything man does includes good and bad, both of which vary over time. A blanket generalization covering the many periods from 300 to 1453 is meaningless without more detailed exposition.

Further, Edward Gibbon finished his famous work around 1789. It is revisionist, does abuse Christian history, and its influence exists today. So the Cambridge history you found could easily be revisionist and tainted against Christianity.

The replies from several people above are nuanced and did answer the original question adequately.


----------



## dnlcnwy (Jun 7, 2021)

Cook S.A., Adcock F. E., Charlesworth M.P., and Baynes N.H., The Cambridge Ancient History, Volume XII, The Imperial Crisis and Recovery, A.D. 193 -324, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press, 1939. p 269.

I am bounding my comments to the period between the Imperial Crisis and the Sack of Rome in 410.


----------



## Schoolman (Jun 7, 2021)

So it is online!

The quotation has very limited application, since it discusses only a specific period of time, 193-312. I should say the author is hyperbolizing with statements such as “increased encroachments of the freedom of the individual.” In actual fact, if you or I were to travel in time, the provinces (the subject of the chapter) would appear libertarian to us, and more like our own American frontier. Ancient times did not have the technology for the degree of surveillance and control we are used to today.

But that description does confirm that the fall of Rome was being reversed. Order was achieved against the decline in the Western empire.

To flash forward 100 years to a sack of Rome, one should remember the context, that the focus of the Roman Empire and civilization had returned to its roots in the east. The western empire had always been somewhat of a frontier, the hinterlands. Rome was outside where most of the people lived, where civilization was centered, where Paul made his missionary journeys.

So when Constantine had moved the capital to Byzantium, he had returned the focus and governance of the wider empire home to where it began under Alexander. Then over time, the West developed its own locus of power culminating in the crowning of Charlemagne in 800, launching a new day (which may be comparable to the letter to Thyatira).

That is why I had referred to the age in question as the age of the “East Church.” When Constantine converted in 312, he inaugurated a new age of the church centered in the Greek civilization of the East.

Rome had already begun a long process of decline; later in the Middle Ages it slipped to a population of perhaps 500 or so. The West, wherein Rome lay, continued as hinterlands until after the Crusades, when the West Church came into its own.

But the age that Constantine launched lasted another 1000 years. For millennia, Greece embodied world civilization and power. Christianity directly caused that endurance and success. When at last Constantinople did fall in 1453, its scholars brought the best texts from antiquity to the West, sparking the Renaissance and the Reformation through the received text of Scripture and the great literary works of the ages.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## chothomas (Jun 7, 2021)

Modern evangelicals are too focused on the purity while ignoring the command of Jesus to be "wise as serpents". God answered prayers of Christians during the demonic Diocletianic Persecution. Jesus commanded to evangelize "kings" as well according to Acts 15:15. So Constantine had faults, but so what? We are going to judge a blessing from God because later Christians distorted this gift? Many RCC and EO blame Reformers like Luther and Calvin for current heresies among "Protestants". Are they right?

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 7, 2021)

dnlcnwy said:


> My knowledge of early State sponsored Christianity does not extend into the Byzantine period. Therefor I cannot challenge your characterization of State sponsored Christianity as benevolent for the Byzantine empire. I can quote a scholar of the period prior to the fall of Rome however. "The price paid for the restoration of the Empire was twofold. First, the absolute State had come, catering for the population at large, schematic, appealing to mass intelligence. Second, a complete State-socialism was in force, with which it's terrorism by officials, it's over-emphasized restrictions on the individual, it's progressive State interference, and it's burdensome taxation and liturgies, previously not so clearly defined, and it's methods of realizing it's demands, acted very much as before, except insofar as it's union with the Christian church, from the time of Constantine, gave the system a religious veneer, and stamped subjection as resignation to the will of God." This quote is from the Cambridge Ancient History, hardly a revisionist source. This does not sound like the kind of society Christ wanted for his church and it is certainly not the kind of society I would want to live in. Now maybe things improved after the fall of Rome, that is a matter for further research on my part, but I stand by my assertion that the Empire from the time of the Imperial Crisis to the fall of Rome was NOT an ideal that we should cite approvingly.


You might want to study the Eastern Empire. Without Constantine you would not have the breathing room that gave rise to the councils and the greatest theologians we ever had

Reactions: Like 2 | Love 1


----------



## chothomas (Jun 7, 2021)

dnlcnwy said:


> My knowledge of early State sponsored Christianity does not extend into the Byzantine period. Therefor I cannot challenge your characterization of State sponsored Christianity as benevolent for the Byzantine empire. I can quote a scholar of the period prior to the fall of Rome however. "The price paid for the restoration of the Empire was twofold. First, the absolute State had come, catering for the population at large, schematic, appealing to mass intelligence. Second, a complete State-socialism was in force, with which it's terrorism by officials, it's over-emphasized restrictions on the individual, it's progressive State interference, and it's burdensome taxation and liturgies, previously not so clearly defined, and it's methods of realizing it's demands, acted very much as before, except insofar as it's union with the Christian church, from the time of Constantine, gave the system a religious veneer, and stamped subjection as resignation to the will of God." This quote is from the Cambridge Ancient History, hardly a revisionist source. This does not sound like the kind of society Christ wanted for his church and it is certainly not the kind of society I would want to live in. Now maybe things improved after the fall of Rome, that is a matter for further research on my part, but I stand by my assertion that the Empire from the time of the Imperial Crisis to the fall of Rome was NOT an ideal that we should cite approvingly.


Put yourself in Constantine's position. Constantine was the emperor of a falling empire wracked by civil wars and dissensions. He is not a pastor or theologian. The scripture is clear on different responsibilities given to civil magistrates .vs church ministers on few things, but there are areas just not that clear. Some issues you raise apply only if he was a church minister.

He became a Christian at later in his life and was looking for ecumenicalism in the Church while trying to revitalize the empire. The issue of Homoousia vs Homoiousia vs Heteroousia was not his fault at all. He funded the Council of Nicaea and abided by the decision. While Arianism/Heteroousia was settled, the church still split between Homoousia and Homiousia and that was the failure of church leaders... not the emperor. He didn't start this tradition of the civil magistrates getting involved in the worship of God, but the church did starting with the Donastism controversy.

The church entered a new era where the Christianity became the dominant religion. No church leaders at that time dreamed of such blessing from God and was not prepared. Also, the scripture is not that clear on the COMPLETE role of the civil magistrates. We have differing views even today.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## dnlcnwy (Jun 8, 2021)

*1* Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints? 

*2* Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters? 

*3* Do you not know that we shall judge angels? How much more, things that pertain to this life? 

*4* If then you have judgments concerning things pertaining to this life, do you appoint those who are least esteemed by the church to judge? 

Church government is to be strictly an internal affair. We are NOT to involve the magistrate in deciding or enforcing our internal disputes. As far as entering a new era where Christianity was the dominant religion, the arrangement that the Church made with the State during the medieval period went beyond mutual respect, it was one of mutual re-enforcement, and the system that the Church re-enforced was a terrible one. Prior to the Imperial Crisis, Roman citizens were for the most part middle class free landowners who had a self motivated real interest in preserving the Nation. The tax system imposed by Constantine and his successors forced free landowners to sell their lands and their persons to large landowners, essentially creating the manoral system. It turned a nation of free farmers into a nation of sharecroppers with no real interest in the preservation of the Nation. The Church sanctioned this, even approved it. WE DIDN'T HAVE TO MAKE THIS BARGAIN. We would have been better off with mere toleration by the government. Such an arrangement would have given us all we needed from the State to conduct our own affairs and left us free to criticize and even (in our secular roles) to resist the socialization of the culture. Please try to view the period objectively. A serf has no real interest in who his landowner is, as long as he gives him a decent shot at surviving the next winter. Citizenship in a "Christian" nation was not an adequate motivator to cause a people stripped of it's freedoms to defend it, so Rome fell. Once a people is stripped of their patriotism the collapse of the culture is inevitable, and that's what the Church was complicit in.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 8, 2021)

dnlcnwy said:


> *1* Dare any of you, having a matter against another, go to law before the unrighteous, and not before the saints?
> 
> *2* Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? And if the world will be judged by you, are you unworthy to judge the smallest matters?
> 
> ...


Was the Council of Nicea a bad idea?

Reactions: Love 1


----------



## dnlcnwy (Jun 8, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> Was the Council of Nicea a bad idea?


We didn't need State sanction to conduct the council of Nicea. We held the Jerusalem council during the period of Roman oppression and that came out just fine. I know it's a distasteful exercise, but think like the enemy for a moment. I suspect that he knew that an abrupt interference of the State in church affairs would have set off alarm bells with the Church fathers, so he decided to gradually inculcate a State role in church affairs by beginning with largely benevolent role like the council of Nicea. A nice outcome, but a terrible precedent. Once the government had it's foot in the door initially annoying and increasingly difficult interference in church affairs was inevitable. It is the nature of government to seek power, and a role in church government was (and remains) a lever of power. The enemy is more than clever enough to exploit this.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 8, 2021)

dnlcnwy said:


> We didn't need State sanction to conduct the council of Nicea. We held the Jerusalem council during the period of Roman oppression and that came out just fine. I know it's a distasteful exercise, but think like the enemy for a moment. I suspect that he knew that an abrupt interference of the State in church affairs would have set off alarm bells with the Church fathers, so he decided to gradually inculcate a State role in church affairs by beginning with largely benevolent role like the council of Nicea. A nice outcome, but a terrible precedent. Once the government had it's foot in the door initially annoying and increasingly difficult interference in church affairs was inevitable. It is the nature of government to seek power, and a role in church government was (and remains) a lever of power. The enemy is more than clever enough to exploit this.


The situation on the ground was far more complex than you make it. The Jerusalem council barely covered Palestine. The Christian range in the 300s covered Scotland to Ethiopia to India

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## dnlcnwy (Jun 8, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> The situation on the ground was far more complex than you make it. The Jerusalem council barely covered Palestine. The Christian range in the 300s covered Scotland to Ethiopia to India


What did government sanction during that period offer us that we couldn't afford on our own? We had access to horses. We could send messages to each other. The church leaders of the time were literate and were holding regular discourse with one another already. There were large meeting places available to the public. Why did we need them?


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 8, 2021)

dnlcnwy said:


> What did government sanction during that period offer us that we couldn't afford on our own? We had access to horses. We could send messages to each other. The church leaders of the time were literate and were holding regular discourse with one another already. There were large meeting places available to the public. Why did we need them?


You’ve already admitted you don’t know about the Eastern Empire. You are reading modern ideas of travel and communication back into the ancient world. It doesn’t work like that.

Reactions: Love 1


----------



## deleteduser99 (Jun 8, 2021)

dnlcnwy said:


> We didn't need State sanction to conduct the council of Nicea. We held the Jerusalem council during the period of Roman oppression and that came out just fine. I know it's a distasteful exercise, but think like the enemy for a moment. I suspect that he knew that an abrupt interference of the State in church affairs would have set off alarm bells with the Church fathers, so he decided to gradually inculcate a State role in church affairs by beginning with largely benevolent role like the council of Nicea. A nice outcome, but a terrible precedent. Once the government had it's foot in the door initially annoying and increasingly difficult interference in church affairs was inevitable. It is the nature of government to seek power, and a role in church government was (and remains) a lever of power. The enemy is more than clever enough to exploit this.



Hello brother. First of all, I don't think I've ever interacted with you yet, so welcome 

If I were to think like the enemy, there are some things I really would not want.

It'd be very helpful to my cause if the church never came to a clear idea on the nature of Christ, and whether He was really God, mostly God, or something else altogether. If you don't fall in with the first of those, you are a heretic. There was nothing really helpful to the devil of getting a mass of pastors and theologians together and act as iron sharpening iron to debate these issues and come up with clear definitions that, 17 centuries later, are still the standard of orthodoxy.

There were other unhelpful developments as well. The Synod of Dort was called by the Netherlands Assembly, so we have that governmental body to thank in some degree that we are five-point Calvinists. And the Five Points as based on the developments of that synod have been a glorious Gospel preservative ever since,.

And where even to begin with the Westminster Confession, the Larger and Shorter Catechism, the Directory of Church Government, and the timeless 1650 Psalter? Who called this assembly? The British Parliament!

And again, these works are the litmus test for orthodoxy, more or less. Some disagreements on some points of the Westminster Standards, but for 370 years we are still referencing, reciting, studying these works for the fact that they are comprehensive, clear, concise, convicting, compelling. The church can never go back.

If this was the work of the devil (which I utterly deny and repudiate), it was a boneheaded thing for him to do, as the church has been marvelously fortified ever since, so long as she holds fast to these standards.

I'll let historians address issues of whether the church could have done this without the help of the governments, but I cannot conceive of churches being able to go to the time and expense that these assemblies would have required without a lot of help. Travel, expenses, pulpit supply, arranging the meeting place, tracking delegates, coordinating schedules, committing to be out-of-towners for lengthy periods of time, and doing this with north of 100 men... that's a huge amount of resources to be expended.

Government funds put towards such magnanimous efforts, in my mind, are well spent.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## dnlcnwy (Jun 8, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> You’ve already admitted you don’t know about the Eastern Empire. You are reading modern ideas of travel and communication back into the ancient world. It doesn’t work like that.


Not really. The question boils down to did the empire have resources for communication and travel that a fairly affluent church did not? I am of the opinion that the government had no significant resource that the church could not have mustered an alternative to on it's own. Even private security was within the range of the early Churches resources.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 8, 2021)

dnlcnwy said:


> Not really. The question boils down to did the empire have resources for communication and travel that a fairly affluent church did not? I am of the opinion that the government had no significant resource that the church could not have mustered tell an alternative to on it's own. Even private security was within the range of the early Churches resources.


The very simple answer is yes. Most churches weren’t affluent,

Reactions: Love 1


----------



## dnlcnwy (Jun 8, 2021)

RPEphesian said:


> Hello brother. First of all, I don't think I've ever interacted with you yet, so welcome
> 
> If I were to think like the enemy, there are some things I really would not want.
> 
> ...


Just about any resource expended by the church in the name of maintaining independence from the State is justified. This is not a just a matter for speculation by historians, alternative or otherwise. A government will go to great expense to establish a attitude of bon homme with an institution that has as much influence over the opinions of it's citizens as the church has, even coming out on support of some truly spectacular doctrinal statements, if it can use this support as coin for recruiting church sanction for some truly awful cause. Modern historians bemoan the pointless bloodshed of the first world war and rightly so, but who was standing behind the various sovereigns of the day lending support for that pointless conflict in the name of country and God? The church. Why? Because they believed what was good for the State was good for the church and vice versa. A government does NOTHING without expecting something back. Christ does not want his body recruited to any cause except his own and those explicitly sanctioned in the word, and it is not for us to enter into any agreement with any organization outside those boundaries no matter how much they sweeten the offer. And yes, the enemy is capable of playing the long game with the church. What fisherman does not bait his hook with something attractive to the fish?


----------



## dnlcnwy (Jun 8, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> The very simple answer is yes. Most churches weren’t affluent,


A matter of research I suppose. Generally throughout the history of the church there have been those with extra resource to be lent to a Godly cause, but I cannot currently claim knowledge of any particular affluent Christians of the period.


----------



## deleteduser99 (Jun 8, 2021)

dnlcnwy said:


> Not really. The question boils down to did the empire have resources for communication and travel that a fairly affluent church did not? I am of the opinion that the government had no significant resource that the church could not have mustered an alternative to on it's own. Even private security was within the range of the early Churches resources.



In conjunction with my last post, I can tell you as a Presbyterian, that even in the modern day this kind of effort for even an annual presbytery or synod lasting a week is a big undertaking. It would have been much more difficult near four centuries ago, or two thousand years ago.

For example, travel. Some of our delegates have to fly from other states. For synod, they fly from as far as Japan. Relatively easy today, but 100 years ago that would have been days or weeks of travel, and the Japanese delegates wouldn't make it. That's a lot of time right there that the pastor is not shepherding his congregation. And this requires that the meeting place, lodgings, and the business of the meetings, with a good idea of who all is coming, be settled months (perhaps a few years?) in advance. That was an enormous administrative task.

Now, doing this for 100-150 delegates. And consider that some had to come to London from as far as Scotland, whole travel distance would average 300 miles roundabout. And horses don't have as much stamina as cars or planes, and fueling them wasn't as cheap, and the fuel efficiency wasn't quite as good.

Now, they all need a place to stay. If you have an annual synod which will last a few days, that's easy enough for congregations to manage. But for the Westminster or Nicea, on top of the travel expense, you need to give hospitality to all these delegates for weeks or months at a time. And take into account that some/all will at some point or another need to go back to their own congregations, and then come back. More coordination, more scheduling. Nicea lasted months, but the Westmister Assembly lasted ten years.

Now, oftentimes the presbytery or denomination will reimburse travel expenses because, to be fair, this is a financial burden. Who is going to reimburse these Westminsterian delegates for the travel (horse feed, inn stays, meals), and hyper-extended and frequent stays in London itself? On top of that, who is going to do pulpit supply while these delegates are off in London? Maybe there are other teaching elders, but very likely others had to bring in another man. So now the delegate pastor needs to be paid for, and so does whoever is taking his place.

And on top of the delegates, the Assembly was also commissioned to examine the qualifications of numerous pastors in the Anglican church already. So now those non-delegates are required to attend and come under a fresh examination. All the previous expenses must account for them too.

I do wonder too about the paperwork. For our synods you sometimes have hundreds of pages of items to read before you come. I imagine that in earlier synods and assemblies they found ways to keep the paperwork down; But nonetheless, it was at a time when many families didn't have their own copies of God's Word, and printing was still more expensive than today. In any case, several years of paperwork, even with a good faith attempt to keep it minimal, I have to imagine was a bit pricy. Who's going to foot that bill?

Could the church somehow still pull all this off? Perhaps one can argue that the church of England was affluent, and many of these Westminster delegates were Anglican men, but that was by political connection, since the Anglican church was a state church. I'm not aware of any church structure in the Three Kingdoms that came up to that level of scale, membership, or geographical spread. But then again, others well-versed in church history may know something I don't.

But for Nicea, could this be pulled off? You would still need to assume a region-wide ecclesiastical superstructure with a lot of wealth which, to my mind, did not exist at the time. And I doubt it would have, considering that Constantine was a relief from an extended period of persecution, and so having a massive, region-wide denomination would have been an attention-getter. And the funds would surely have been the targets of the persecutors. But let the historians say for sure on this.

I would say yes, government funds were utterly critical to making this happen.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## dnlcnwy (Jun 8, 2021)

Jeri Tanner said:


> Brother Daniel, the understanding, I believe, is that magistrates are to be nursing fathers and mothers to the church. The very term ‘nursing’ implies a closer relationship than mere toleration or even friendliness. The true religion must be countenanced above false ones for the church to flourish in peace (which 2 Timothy 2:2 tells us to pray for). It seems funny that God may have set it up this way, for magistrates to play such a role, but God did, in his wisdom.
> 
> So the magistrate sometimes called for a synod because when controversy was raging in the church, the church couldn’t accomplish one without his help.
> 
> The church is also free to ignore the magistrate’s commands in other times, when it’s an erastian impulse at work.


Sister Jeri, I respectfully disagree. Throughout the period of the old testament God told Israel not to look to outside powers for succor or protection. They were to rely upon him for their needs, both spiritual and physical. I liken turning to the State for help in an ecclesiastical matter to turning to Egypt for protection from Babylon. God will ALWAYS provide us with the resources we need to sustain his Church both physically and spiritually as long as he remains our exclusive source of inspiration and authority.


----------



## dnlcnwy (Jun 8, 2021)

RPEphesian said:


> In conjunction with my last post, I can tell you as a Presbyterian, that even in the modern day this kind of effort for even an annual presbytery or synod lasting a week is a big undertaking. It would have been much more difficult near four centuries ago, or two thousand years ago.
> 
> For example, travel. Some of our delegates have to fly from other states. For synod, they fly from as far as Japan. Relatively easy today, but 100 years ago that would have been days or weeks of travel, and the Japanese delegates wouldn't make it. That's a lot of time right there that the pastor is not shepherding his congregation. And this requires that the meeting place, lodgings, and the business of the meetings, with a good idea of who all is coming, be settled months (perhaps a few years?) in advance. That was an enormous administrative task.
> 
> ...


Your losing sight of the principle in the details. Look at the lengths God went to to maintain the independence and provide for the needs of his people in the period of the Old Testament. Israel was told numerous times not to make alliances with outside powers, no matter how sweet the deal was, because he was to be their exclusive source of provision and authority. If the Israel humbled herself and trusted in God for her provision, God always came through for them. The principle is directly applicable to our relationship with the State. Putting it bluntly, whatever nation the Church finds herself living among is a foreign power in the eye's of our true sovereign and should be kept at arms length in all matters not explicitly addressed in the word.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 8, 2021)

We need to order our minds, such that we can see how both:
1) God could ordain many possible avenues to achieve his ends, some which would be "ideal;" that is, they might have miraculous provision (meaning more than providential alignments with various natural aids), or they might cut through untold distractions and potential contests to easily arrive at that key to unlock a theological conundrum. And he might do it precisely while helping the church to avoid worldly "entanglements" entirely.

2) God apparently has chosen to find his determinate ends through the messy mechanics of human history. What God might have done otherwise, as a kind of demonstration of his preference for church labors that stand quite outside of ecclesiastic alliances with covenant-breakers (speaking of them in national solidarity as they stand related to the Covenant of Works), he has not done. Instead, he continues in this age to do what he did in the last, namely to use even those imperfect attempts--be they sinful as such, or mistaken, or just constrained in the moment--to rely on God _through _secular power surrounding the church, nevertheless to get him his victory one increment of growth (Dan.2:35) at a time.

We don't have to approve unreservedly any aspect of Constantine's contribution, to also admit that it was an instrument of sustaining the church and adding to its mature development and expansion. Nor must we disapprove of every aspect of Constantine's contribution, to be able to say that there was more or less significant defection from a pure ideal of church-state relations.

We can neither roundly condemn the first and great official state recognition of the church, or anything further as it came in one form or another in different places and times thereafter; nor can we unerringly praise it. Unless God had continued and even expanded the miracles of the foundational era of the NT age, we are left to expression of thanksgiving for the providential logistical assistance, and then official promotion of the decrees of Nicaea I.

We do so in the manner of Israel thanking God for the decree of Cyrus permitting them return to the land; or thanking Xerxes (as apt polite admission) for amending his murderous decree against the chosen people, by further permitting them to defend themselves and giving them the natural means. We don't necessarily approve _ideally _of the lack of Jewish independence in those circumstances, or even that Esther the Jewess was wed to a heathen king. As Mordecai himself stated (Est.4:14), God was able--and he certainly would--defend his people (and his promise) in some manner. The manner he chose also does service to our theological understanding.

I personally don't think that gaining the standing the church did around the time of Constantine is _interpretable _as a certain kind of progress, a step toward "inevitable" creation of glorious Christendom, and that one which God approves as an earthly apotheosis of his dominion manifested in history. I am convinced by now there is no reasonable expectation of such (not vitiated by too many defects to count) before the arrival of the eschatological kingdom fulfilled. I know others are convinced of alternate outcomes; and I see that those convictions can lead to particular _interpretations _of Constantine; but I reject them, both the progressive and the destructive.

Reactions: Like 4


----------



## deleteduser99 (Jun 8, 2021)

dnlcnwy said:


> Just about any resource expended by the church in the name of maintaining independence from the State is justified. This is not a just a matter for speculation by historians, alternative or otherwise. A government will go to great expense to establish a attitude of bon homme with an institution that has as much influence over the opinions of it's citizens as the church has, even coming out on support of some truly spectacular doctrinal statements, if it can use this support as coin for recruiting church sanction for some truly awful cause. Modern historians bemoan the pointless bloodshed of the first world war and rightly so, but who was standing behind the various sovereigns of the day lending support for that pointless conflict in the name of country and God? The church. Why? Because they believed what was good for the State was good for the church and vice versa. A government does NOTHING without expecting something back. Christ does not want his body recruited to any cause except his own and those explicitly sanctioned in the word, and it is not for us to enter into any agreement with any organization outside those boundaries no matter how much they sweeten the offer. * And yes, the enemy is capable of playing the long game with the church. What fisherman does not bait his hook with something attractive to the fish?*



From those assembled men we have gifts that keep on giving, and to this day the Westminster Standards have been a _wrecking ball_ to his strongholds. The antichrist took a nasty blow at the Reformation, and those Standards have been a marvelous exasperation of his wound. It's very strange to think that 150 men who lived in the Scriptures and burned for the purity of the church would so badly miss that by authoring these precious documents that the devil was pulling a fast one on them. But the view of government you present I'll address a little further down.



dnlcnwy said:


> *Your losing sight of the principle in the details*. Look at the lengths God went to to maintain the independence and provide for the needs of his people in the period of the Old Testament. Israel was told numerous times not to make alliances with outside powers, no matter how sweet the deal was, because he was to be their exclusive source of provision and authority. If the Israel humbled herself and trusted in God for her provision, God always came through for them. The principle is directly applicable to our relationship with the State. Putting it bluntly, whatever nation the Church finds herself living among is a foreign power in the eye's of our true sovereign and should be kept at arms length in all matters not explicitly addressed in the word.



I haven't lost sight. You and Jacob are discussing whether the church had its own financial resources from which it could have achieved the same thing, or something similar. I pointed out why it would have been extraordinarily difficult, if not impossible.

God's injunction against certain alliances cannot be used in an unqualified way, any more than you can use Scriptures' condemnation of Asa's use of medicine in an unqualified way. 2 Chronicles 16:12 says he sought not the Lord, but the physicians. David and Solomon imported loads of riches from other foreign powers for the sake of building the Temple, and it was by the decree of Cyrus the second temple was constructed. Unless we want to say that David and Solomon sinned?

I've heard many say what you have said about staying as independent from the government's resources as possible, but when it came to election season many of those same persons become quite passionate that you should vote for Trump because he is "good for the church" (And for those who know me, I do not intend to get on ethics of voting, so don't worry  ). Even those who are avidly dis-establishment find themselves unable to disconnect the well-being of the church from what government does, and do actively seek and advocate for the government's favor in policy, if not in money. This is as much "leaning on Egypt" as accepting PPP loans. Whether or not you should vote for him isn't my point. Point is, no one in the "independence" or "anti-establishment" camp seeks for a fully unqualified independence from the government. Practically, a total disconnect doesn't exist.

Concerning the view of government, the Scriptures call the government "The minister of God," "a terror to evil" and "a rewarder of good." That is what a government is supposed to be. Like any business or even the church, the government will be as good as the people running it. If the wicked are running it, the nation should ask whether they have voted in the wrong people, or if God is provoked and He has put wicked people over them. It'd never be an argument that the church is bad because so many congregations are run by selfish self-stuffing shepherds who shear the sheep. Neither with government. If we are run by ungodly men, it may be our fault. 

But in any case, government has been established by God, for very good ends. How church and state relate to one another, that's a big question; but government being from God cannot be treated as inherently or essentially evil.

Reactions: Like 2 | Love 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 8, 2021)

dnlcnwy said:


> A matter of research I suppose. Generally throughout the history of the church there have been those with extra resource to be lent to a Godly cause, but I cannot currently claim knowledge of any particular affluent Christians of the period.


You made a sweeping claim about a level of organization and affluence that wouldn’t have been possible for many centuries. Also, I am willing to give up the mythical, never existing innocence if the church in exchange for Nicea

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## hammondjones (Jun 8, 2021)

The Greek victory was a victory for the Church, since it kept Persia from conquering Europe. Alexander the Great's conquest was a victory for the Church, since it lead to Greek being the lingua franca for much of the known world. The Roman Empire was a victory for the Church - if for the roads only. It is all victory for the Church.

Reactions: Like 6


----------



## dnlcnwy (Jun 8, 2021)

RPEphesian said:


> From those assembled men we have gifts that keep on giving, and to this day the Westminster Standards have been a _wrecking ball_ to his strongholds. The antichrist took a nasty blow at the Reformation, and those Standards have been a marvelous exasperation of his wound. It's very strange to think that 150 men who lived in the Scriptures and burned for the purity of the church would so badly miss that by authoring these precious documents that the devil was pulling a fast one on them. But the view of government you present I'll address a little further down.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Government is no more inherently evil than any other secular institution and God uses it to provide an orderly environment for his Church, but it is foreign to the kingdom of God, to be related to only on terms prescribed by the word. I openly acknowledge that the confessions that came out of the Reformations were a great good. And it is true that God used State sponsorship to bring them about. But even if the State was a scaffolding used by God for the church then, he used it as a concession to our weakness rather than out of preference, much as God used the polygamy of Jacob to build up the house of Israel. He got the twelve tribes of Israel out of it, but it came at the price of a lot of internecine conflict. God got the confessions out of the synods, but it came at the price of a Church allied to the State that kept the church relatively mum about many of the abuses of the European governments. In fact at times they endorsed some serious crimes. I acknowledge that it is God's right to strike those kinds of flawed bargains to further his purposes, but there is difference between what God uses and what he really prefers. (there is technical term for the two kinds of wills that God has that define his perfect will while permitting his providential will that escapes me). Perhaps we can all agree that State sponsorship of the Church isn't necessary now and should be avoided. My own personal philosophies on the State do not prevent me from voting, but I do not expect my government to further the cause of the Church.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 8, 2021)

dnlcnwy said:


> but it came at the price of a Church allied to the State that kept the church relatively mum about many of the abuses of the European governments


The Huguenot and Covenanter did not keep mum. Please read history

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## dnlcnwy (Jun 8, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> You made a sweeping claim about a level of organization and affluence that wouldn’t have been possible for many centuries. Also, I am willing to give up the mythical, never existing innocence if the church in exchange for Nicea


Researcher David Barrett reports that by the year 300, or nine generations after Christ, the world was 10.4% Christian with 66.4% of believers Non-whites. The scriptures had been translated into ten languages. More than 410,000, representing one in every 200 believers from the time of Christ, had given their lives as martyrs for the faith.

I think such a church would have been capable of supporting a Nicean council independent of the State.


----------



## Schoolman (Jun 8, 2021)

Just as most genuinely professing Christians were raised in Christian households by Christian parents, so it is that most Christians come from nations who formally adopted Christianity. America still benefits from the doctrinally Reformed faith of Great Britain. The model nation of the Israelites was governed by judges of the faith and the Bible grades the kings by the faith reflected in their morals and policies.


----------



## chothomas (Jun 8, 2021)

dnlcnwy said:


> Your losing sight of the principle in the details. Look at the lengths God went to to maintain the independence and provide for the needs of his people in the period of the Old Testament. Israel was told numerous times not to make alliances with outside powers, no matter how sweet the deal was, because he was to be their exclusive source of provision and authority. If the Israel humbled herself and trusted in God for her provision, God always came through for them. The principle is directly applicable to our relationship with the State. Putting it bluntly, whatever nation the Church finds herself living among is a foreign power in the eye's of our true sovereign and should be kept at arms length in all matters not explicitly addressed in the word.


You are not comparing apples to apples. Constantine is the emperor of the Roman Empire where most Christians were subject of. Your example of Israel not making alliances with outside powers does not apply to this situation. It's more like Levites like Isaiah or Jeremiah guiding Judean Kings, not Egyptian Pharoahs. Think of it more like the first Great Awakening which was Britain and British American Colonies only. 

I believe you are in PCA. Why do we put "America" or "United States" in the Presbyterian denomination names?

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## dnlcnwy (Jun 8, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> The Huguenot and Covenanter did not keep mum. Please read history


The Huguenot and the Covenanter both spent time as persecuted churches. Such an experience tends to sever alliances to the majority State sponsored Church. The guiding principle is that when the Church is stroked by the State it tends to come out in favor of what the State requests.


----------



## dnlcnwy (Jun 8, 2021)

chothomas said:


> You are not comparing apples to apples. Constantine is the emperor of the Roman Empire where most Christians were subject of. Your example of Israel not making alliances with outside powers does not apply to this situation. It's more like Levites like Isaiah or Jeremiah guiding Judean Kings, not Egyptian Pharoahs. Think of it more like the first Great Awakening which was Britain and British American Colonies only.
> 
> I believe you are in PCA. Why do we put "America" or "United States" in the Presbyterian denomination names?


I happen to be sojourning in the United States of America and as long as this nation continues to give my church tolerance and protection from foreign powers I will remain loyal to it and even fight for it in a just war, but this is not my home and not the recipient of my first loyalty. My home is a far more glorious place than this popsical stand of a world and my king a far more worthy ruler than any secular prince. I order my life and alliances accordingly.


----------



## deleteduser99 (Jun 8, 2021)

dnlcnwy said:


> I happen to be sojourning in the United States of America and *as long as this nation continues to give my church tolerance and protection from foreign powers I will remain loyal to it and even fight for it in a just war*, but this is not my home and not the recipient of my first loyalty. My home is a far more glorious place than this popsical stand of a world and my king a far more worthy ruler than any secular prince. I order my life and alliances accordingly.



You just explicitly allied yourself with a government power, pledging your loyalty and life in exchange for policies favorable to the church; the very thing you said we should not be doing.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## dnlcnwy (Jun 8, 2021)

RPEphesian said:


> You just explicitly allied yourself with a government power, pledging your loyalty and life in exchange for policies favorable to the church; the very thing you said we should not be doing.


Don't put words in my mouth. I said we give the secular state the deference and consideration prescribed in the bible. Responsible citizenship and even military service are both elucidated in the word when we are temporary citizens of whatever responsible nation we find ourselves in. But this is not my home and as a believer it isn't your's either. The early church endured death before they would proclaim the Emperor Lord. They were prepared to give the Empire every deference except that, and that is my attitude as well.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 8, 2021)

dnlcnwy said:


> Researcher David Barrett reports that by the year 300, or nine generations after Christ, the world was 10.4% Christian with 66.4% of believers Non-whites. The scriptures had been translated into ten languages. More than 410,000, representing one in every 200 believers from the time of Christ, had given their lives as martyrs for the faith.
> 
> I think such a church would have been capable of supporting a Nicean council independent of the State.


None of that translates into capital and infrastructure

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 8, 2021)

dnlcnwy said:


> The Huguenot and the Covenanter both spent time as persecuted churches. Such an experience tends to sever alliances to the majority State sponsored Church. The guiding principle is that when the Church is stroked by the State it tends to come out in favor of what the State requests.


The Covenanters were theocrats by definition

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 8, 2021)

Does an individual have a God-given right to worship Kali, Shiva, and Vishnu?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## deleteduser99 (Jun 8, 2021)

dnlcnwy said:


> Don't put words in my mouth. I said we give the secular state the deference and consideration prescribed in the bible. Responsible citizenship and even military service are both elucidated in the word when we are temporary citizens of whatever responsible nation we find ourselves in. But this is not my home and as a believer it isn't your's either. The early church endured death before they would proclaim the Emperor Lord. They were prepared to give the Empire every deference except that, and that is my attitude as well.



Perhaps you didn't intend how your words come across, that's possible. Still, "deference and consideration prescribed in the bible" is not how you worded it. If that's what you mean then ok. Though nonetheless, as I said before, even the strictest advocates of separation between church and state do end up courting the government's favor via policies "for the good of the church". The government responds nicely to the wooing, and the church keeps wooing. That's how Republicans stay in office.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## dnlcnwy (Jun 8, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> None of that translates into capital and infrastructure


The infrastructure was there for anybody to use, whether the State or private individuals. A Church with the kind of commitment indicated by those statistics would have scraped up the capital.


----------



## dnlcnwy (Jun 8, 2021)

RPEphesian said:


> Perhaps you didn't intend how your words come across, that's possible. Still, "deference and consideration prescribed in the bible" is not how you worded it. If that's what you mean then ok. Though nonetheless, as I said before, even the strictest advocates of separation between church and state do end up courting the government's favor via policies "for the good of the church". The government responds nicely to the wooing, and the church keeps wooing. That's how Republicans stay in office.


Yes, the courting of the church by the government and the government by the church goes on (By both parties. They each have their respective congregations) and probably will as long as we have a flawed Church, which we will as long as we are in this world. But it is a great evil. As a church we are basically cheating on our husband when we do this, and it is a great distress to the heart of our Lord.


----------



## dnlcnwy (Jun 8, 2021)

BayouHuguenot said:


> The Covenanters were theocrats by definition


Maybe by definition, but they spent a lot of time at war with governments that claimed authority over them. Maybe the wars were just, but they certainly weren't being stroked by the establishment.


----------



## RamistThomist (Jun 8, 2021)

dnlcnwy said:


> Maybe by definition, but they spent a lot of time at war with governments that claimed authority over them. Maybe the wars were just, but they certainly weren't being stroked by the establishment.


Nobody said they were being stroked by the establishment. That’s a narrative only you are telling

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## deleteduser99 (Jun 8, 2021)

dnlcnwy said:


> Yes, the courting of the church by the government and the government by the church goes on (By both parties. They each have their respective congregations) and probably will as long as we have a flawed Church, which we will as long as we are in this world. But it is a great evil. As a church we are basically cheating on our husband when we do this, and it is a great distress to the heart of our Lord.



So, come elections 2022 and 2024, "the good of the church" will be of no influence at all on your vote, either to vote for or against anyone?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Jun 8, 2021)

The separation of church and state is a myth. They meet in me. Civil government is not a necessary evil simply allowed by God due to sin. Earth and this physical, temporal existence is not evil either. It is tainted by sin, but all ordained by God. God gave Adam dominion before the Fall.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## dnlcnwy (Jun 8, 2021)

RPEphesian said:


> So, come elections 2022 and 2024, "the good of the church" will be of no influence at all on your vote, either to vote for or against anyone?


My definition of "the good of the church" is to be left free to order our affairs and to worship as we see fit, free of any obligations, explicit or implied, to vote one way or the other.


----------



## dnlcnwy (Jun 8, 2021)

Eyedoc84 said:


> The separation of church and state is a myth. They meet in me. Civil government is not a necessary evil simply allowed by God due to sin. Earth and this physical, temporal existence is not evil either. It is tainted by sin, but all ordained by God. God gave Adam dominion before the Fall.


Then Uzziah prepared for them, for the entire army, shields, spears, helmets, body armor, bows, and slings to cast stones. 

*15* And he made devices in Jerusalem, invented by skillful men, to be on the towers and the corners, to shoot arrows and large stones. So his fame spread far and wide, for he was marvelously helped till he became strong. 

*16* But when he was strong his heart was lifted up, to his destruction, for he transgressed against the Lord his God by entering the temple of the Lord to burn incense on the altar of incense. 

*17* So Azariah the priest went in after him, and with him were eighty priests of the Lord--valiant men. 

*18* And they withstood King Uzziah, and said to him, "It is not for you, Uzziah, to burn incense to the Lord, but for the priests, the sons of Aaron, who are consecrated to burn incense. Get out of the sanctuary, for you have trespassed! You shall have no honor from the Lord God." 

*19* Then Uzziah became furious; and he had a censer in his hand to burn incense. And while he was angry with the priests, leprosy broke out on his forehead, before the priests in the house of the Lord, beside the incense altar. 

*20* And Azariah the chief priest and all the priests looked at him, and there, on his forehead, he was leprous; so they thrust him out of that place. 

God is very particular about the secular authorities operating in the sphere assigned to them and the religious authorities operating in the sphere assigned to them. In this very important sense he does teach the separation of church and state. I am sure that you do not presume to co-mingle your secular and ecclesiastical roles. If you do you are in serious danger in incurring displeasure from God and corrupting each of your respective roles.


----------



## deleteduser99 (Jun 8, 2021)

dnlcnwy said:


> My definition of "the good of the church" is to be left free to order our affairs and to worship as we see fit, free of any obligations, explicit or implied, to vote one way or the other.



So... Will it sway your vote or not?

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## dnlcnwy (Jun 8, 2021)

Schoolman said:


> Just as most genuinely professing Christians were raised in Christian households by Christian parents, so it is that most Christians come from nations who formally adopted Christianity. America still benefits from the doctrinally Reformed faith of Great Britain. The model nation of the Israelites was governed by judges of the faith and the Bible grades the kings by the faith reflected in their morals and policies.


It is glorious when any nation or culture adopts the faith. And yes, the United States has benefited enormously from the reformed churches that came out of Reformed Europe. But it is no accident that the most spiritually and evangelically active churches are in the nations whose governments take a minimal role in the government of the church or, best of all, are proscribed by law from taking any role at all! Europeans marvel at (and sometimes mock) the religiosity of the American culture when their own State sponsored churches languish in empty moralism. Why? Because we don't have a cadre of State Church commissars muddying the message of salvation with excessive State responsibilities. The rest of the world looks at the American Church and says to itself "Why isn't it dead by now?" Because we are forced by denial of access to any other recourse to rely exclusively upon the Lord, and the Lord want's it that way!


----------



## dnlcnwy (Jun 8, 2021)

RPEphesian said:


> So... Will it sway your vote or not?


I am under no obligation to commit my vote at the behest of any government OR individual.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 8, 2021)

Isn't it possible for one man to vote for a quick death, another for a slow death, both having in mind "the good of the church?" The votes are not necessarily unto actual extinction. Both men could be "voting their conscience." The one voting for "slow death" (in this scenario) doesn't even think he's voting _for_ death in the least, thereby justifying his participation; he thinks the other man IS voting for quick death, and faults him.

The one voting for a quick death (in this scenario) believes he is choosing martyrdom no matter what choice he makes, and he's been offered a choice between painful but quick, or slow and agonizing. He thinks the other man is naive, and faults him.

Maybe neither should fault the other, take his own position, and respect the other man's conscience.

Reactions: Like 2


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Jun 8, 2021)

dnlcnwy said:


> Then Uzziah prepared for them, for the entire army, shields, spears, helmets, body armor, bows, and slings to cast stones.
> 
> *15* And he made devices in Jerusalem, invented by skillful men, to be on the towers and the corners, to shoot arrows and large stones. So his fame spread far and wide, for he was marvelously helped till he became strong.
> 
> ...


I believe in the Reformed concept of separation of church and state, not the anabaptist one. No one here, as far as I can tell, has argued for a “co-mingling” or confusion of roles. The WCF is neither Erastian nor Ecclesiocratic (is there a historical name for this other than Papist?).

Reactions: Love 1


----------



## dnlcnwy (Jun 8, 2021)

Eyedoc84 said:


> The separation of church and state is a myth. They meet in me. Civil government is not a necessary evil simply allowed by God due to sin. Earth and this physical, temporal existence is not evil either. It is tainted by sin, but all ordained by God. God gave Adam dominion before the Fall.


Your own words were the "separation of church and state is a myth. They meet in me.", not "I believe in the Reformed concept of separation of church and state". I have no problem with churchmen serving in civil service roles. I submit that your original language would have justified a co-mingling of roles precluded even by the reformed concept of separation of church and state. I am no anabaptist. I simply do not believe in a role of government in the church beyond that explicitly prescribed by the word.


----------



## Eyedoc84 (Jun 8, 2021)

dnlcnwy said:


> Your own words were the "separation of church and state is a myth. They meet in me.", not "I believe in the Reformed concept of separation of church and state". I have no problem with churchmen serving in civil service roles. I submit that your original language would have justified a co-mingling of roles precluded even by the reformed concept of separation of church and state. I am no anabaptist. I simply do not believe in a role of government in the church beyond that explicitly prescribed by the word.


I meant _absolute_ separation of church and state, the way most Americans mean it.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## Schoolman (Jun 8, 2021)

The Bible explicitly prescribes rule of the godly prince, including prohibition of false worship and the protection and fostering of true worship.


----------



## dnlcnwy (Jun 9, 2021)

I have read the psalms. I too rejoice when we have Godly leadership in power in this country or in any other. But please, consider the danger. Even in the period of the Israeli theocracy God was careful to put a strict partition between the role of the (hopefully Godly) secular prince and the Ecclesiastic authorities. Consider the example posted earlier in the thread of the presumption of king Uzziah. God wants the lines of divine authority to run straight to him through Christ and a nation that places responsibility for maintaining true worship in the hands of the secular authorities is running it's spiritual water through lead plumbing. When Daniel saw the rock that was not cut out by human hands smash the figure representing the previous worldly powers and growing into a mountain that filled the whole earth we all are in agreement that he was seeing a metaphor for the kingdom of Christ's church, not any particular nation that contained citizens of that church. I submit that it is the Churches responsibility to preach and foster true worship within the societal scaffolding of an orderly and tolerant State. If the leadership of that State belongs to Christ's kingdom that is a glorious and beneficial thing, but they are to leave ecclesiastic responsibilities to the Church.


----------



## deleteduser99 (Jun 9, 2021)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Isn't it possible for one man to vote for a quick death, another for a slow death, both having in mind "the good of the church?" The votes are not necessarily unto actual extinction. Both men could be "voting their conscience." The one voting for "slow death" (in this scenario) doesn't even think he's voting _for_ death in the least, thereby justifying his participation; he thinks the other man IS voting for quick death, and faults him.
> 
> The one voting for a quick death (in this scenario) believes he is choosing martyrdom no matter what choice he makes, and he's been offered a choice between painful but quick, or slow and agonizing. He thinks the other man is naive, and faults him.
> 
> Maybe neither should fault the other, take his own position, and respect the other man's conscience.



Pr. Buchanan,

First, thank you for this post, as well as #31, which I did read attentively.

I admit I'm not quite clear the central intention of the post quoted. Since I'm the only one who mentioned voting and "the good of the church" I suppose it's related to mine, and perhaps you are perceiving a criticism in my writing of one's choice to vote a certain way, rather than another?

If it helps, though people know mine and the RPCNA stance on voting, it's rather the kind of thing I'm trying to keep away from. So, no intention from me to tell people how they should vote, or how they should not. I certainly don't intend to tell anyone in this thread that one choice of voting is more detrimental than another, or unto extinction. I don't really intend to debate Establishment doctrine either in this thread. Then again, writing clarity is an ongoing process for me.

The term "good of the church" isn't actually my phrase. It's a term used by a non-establishment brother of mine (not on PB) who says this is the ultimate criteria for voting.

My own central point, is that hardly any Christian (if any) in the US makes even the most basic political decision without concerns to its impact on the church, whatever else is said about separation of the two institutions. Election season tends to show even among those with a professed indifference to church/state relations, or even resistance to it, private Christians and pastors will quickly and openly associate their names with certain political figures and stances. For some of them (but not all), it is unthinkable that other Christians would not do the same. When that happens, it's pretty hard to see how one can be so bold and open about their political preferences, even citing the church's necessity, and yet say we are to act as though we as Christians should be leery of relations with the government. But again, not all in the non-establishment camp act this way, and I tend to think those persons are consistent.

And, Republicans are well in-tune with what the church really wants. Whatever else is said, if the Republicans offer the right positions they are guaranteed the church's vote. Sure the church isn't asking for money and countenancing, and many would think that awful, but there is an unspoken agreement between the church and Republicans what are the terms of their relationship. Which practically speaking isn't too far from a "covenant with Egypt."

I certainly shouldn't judge. Eight years ago I was rather indignant that people wouldn't vote for Romney, and I thought that Pres. Obama's re-election meant the coming of persecution.

As you said, church history is messy (the same as politics); and where people get involved, there's wood, hay, and stubble that will be consumed. So, fully agreed that even the most premier events in church history should not be praised as all or exclusively good; so long as the good is acknowledged. Same as it would it be wrong for someone with Establishment views to look at the political structure of America and not be grateful that despite its real defects (as I believe there to be), we still have something similar to the church in Constantine's time; opportunity to grow and develop in a particular way that many Christians have not been able to.

But if we're going to say that we need to maintain a clear separation of church and state, where one hardly talks to the other, and anything beyond that is an unauthorized covenanting, it needs to at least be acknowledged that those who profess that stance oftentimes make the covenant in other ways.

And even if the Establishment principle turned out to be unscriptural, and that there should be more distance than cooperation between church and state, I'd only advocate that the work of God done in these assemblies not be thrown under the bus, as though they were the work of the enemy.


----------



## deleteduser99 (Jun 9, 2021)

@dnlcnwy 

I need to bow out since I can't lawfully afford much more time on this thread; but thank you for your interaction.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Jun 9, 2021)

RPEphesian said:


> Pr. Buchanan,
> 
> First, thank you for this post, as well as #31, which I did read attentively.
> 
> ...


Butting in to an exchange I wasn't a party to with other thoughts--I just hoped to contribute irenically. I didn't mean to be critical.

I agree with you that our first concern, be the subject family, business, recreation, education, politics, war--you name it--should be the good of the church. Seek ye first the kingdom of God. And I'm guessing you might find me in the "more consistent" camp, given I don't like seeing the church take political stances, overtly or covertly. I agree with a lot of what you write there, including the "conservative church" regarded as a safe voting bloc for smooth-talking seducers who only care about taking your virgin vote for party interests. It is a worthless covenanting, if by another name.

If we must state a moral conviction publicly, then it should be made in such a way that the moral position is something a politician of any stripe could profess his agreement or disagreement with; we are not setting up any agreement or disagreement with a person, party, or lobby. The church ought not choose to "back a side," comparable to the way Jesus refused to cozy up to the political machinery of his time, or a faction, nor sought he to form his own backing for the purpose of taking power.

As you bring up the historic Covenanter position, I would just point out that this purpose so acted upon in good conscience makes its own, often misunderstood but real, contribution to the "good of the church" as related to the (current) secular state surrounding. If someone responds with, "But what he does does no good!" he is actually saying 

1) he knows what all Christians ought to be doing (e.g. participating, minimally by voting thus validating the system; then voting in the way that seems most advantageous to the recruiter); and 
2) he can't conceive of any way--even long term, after all if he can't see it it must not be there--the Covenanter position does the complainer any good.

What's good for the complainer (n his own eyes) is good for the church, why doesn't everyone agree with that? In fact, since the Covenanter isn't helping the church, why not question his faith also? The questioning of folk's faith is also applied to other Christians who dissent from whatever party-line position has been forged through the conjuring of "unity" and the power of shame to guide opinion.

I'm personally doubtful of the desireability of an Establishment church or churches. I default to thinking it is a snare. That said, like yourself I'm thankful for certain results that came about at one time or another in contexts where the church was given favors. Thanks for the conversation.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## deleteduser99 (Jun 9, 2021)

Contra_Mundum said:


> Butting in to an exchange I wasn't a party to with other thoughts--I just hoped to contribute irenically. I didn't mean to be critical.
> 
> I agree with you that our first concern, be the subject family, business, recreation, education, politics, war--you name it--should be the good of the church. Seek ye first the kingdom of God. And I'm guessing you might find me in the "more consistent" camp, given I don't like seeing the church take political stances, overtly or covertly. I agree with a lot of what you write there, including the "conservative church" regarded as a safe voting bloc for smooth-talking seducers who only care about taking your virgin vote for party interests. It is a worthless covenanting, if by another name.
> 
> ...



I see that I misunderstood your intent, apologies. Thanks for clarifying. The ambiguities of online interaction.

I'm very much in agreement with the things you say here; and yes, if you tend to be a minimalist in concerns to church political involvement, then I find the low-key approach to be consistent. In any case, the church being the pillar and buttress of truth has its authority from Christ to at least tell governments and politicians what they should be ("terror to evil" and "rewarder of good"). Perhaps for the meantime in the US there'll be disagreement in just how the church participates and to what extent, but it'll be cause for rejoicing once she, at a minimum, declares the will of God to the powers that be, whether she receives the needed goods or not. And to show the powers that be that she's rather serious.

Thank you too for the conversation and contributions, here and elsewhere.


----------

