Path: utzoo!attcan!utgpu!watmath!att!dptg!rutgers!aramis.rutgers.edu!athos.rutgers.edu!christian
From: COSC2U2@uhvax1.uh.edu
Newsgroups: soc.religion.christian
Subject: Re: nicaean council
Message-ID: 
Date: 9 Aug 89 07:13:47 GMT
Sender: hedrick@athos.rutgers.edu
Organization: University of Houston
Lines: 139
Approved: christian@aramis.rutgers.edu

In article , ejh@sei.cmu.edu writes:
> i watched a show on the discovery channel last night called 'testament'.
> i suspect it's a series, but this is the first one i ever saw or even heard
> about. in it, the guy put forth the notion that constantine was not so much
> a christian as a realist wanting to hold on to his temporal power.

  That part is moderately true. Constantine did scrupulously observe boundaries
between Church and State. He had problems with Civil Unrest because of the
Arian-Catholic Rift. The Council of Nicea was his way of having the Church
definitively settle their dispute, that is, to formulate a Statement of
Faith as a sort of a Church Constitution. The Arians were sore loosers,
and retaliated by getting Constantine to backslide. Though Constantine
apparantly recanted on his death bed, the damage had been done, and his
sons took the Arian position. Fortunately, when Theodosius came to power,
he held another Council that reaffirmed the Creed. Theodosius, though also
scrupulously observing the boundary between Church and State, dealt with
the Arians as the cause of the Civil Unrest. The Creed withstood the Test
of Time.
                  
   There are opponents, even today, who espouse some of the Arian positions,
who seek to challange various points. To do so is also to challenge the
Church'es duty to govern itself in doctrinal matters, and thus to challenge
the theme of the Book of Acts, if not the Book of Acts itself.

> 
> it seems that constantine made a deal with the christians along the lines
> of: i'll grant you power over the spiritual, if you cede me power over the
> temporal. apparently there was a lot of problems with martyrs, etc.,
> causing lots of unrest in the empire. in other words, i'll back you guys
> as the official state religion, if you make my life as emperor simpler.

  Oversimplified, but basically agrees with the Separation of Church and
  State Principle. Does not mention the Civil Unrest problem in any detail.
  A King certainly has the right to delegate authority, and to enlist 
  assistance in quelling Civil Unrest. Constantine and Theodosius chose
  the Carrot instead of the Stick.

> 
> the really interesting part was that it was constantine's secretary who
> actually put forth what became known as the nicaean creed, which
> constantine used as a way to make all the sects agree and stop their wars.
> from this, i conclude that constantine wasn't interested in christianity
> per se, just in peace. indeed, he was not baptized until he was on his
> deathbed.

   St. Athanasius, Bishop of Alexandria, was the man who did the work. How
did he get to be Constantine's Secretary in Constantinople? An obviously
suspect statement. Besides, if Constantine & staff concocted it, as Wierville
of "The Way International" claims, why did Constantine backslide to the
Arians?                                                  

[Unfortunately, we simply don't know exactly where they got the Nicene
Creed.  It's certainly based on baptismal creeds already in use.  E.g.
a creed from Caesarea (apparently from Eusebius) is very similar to
the Nicene creed.  To complicate things, the creed that we normally
call "Nicene" isn't.  It is later than Nicea.  It is traditionally
connected with the council of Constantinople (381), but doesn't appear
specifically in the records of that council.  However it was accepted
by the council of Chalcedon (451) as being the result of
Constantinople.  --clh]

> 
> other things that came out of the show:
> 
> constantine was obsessed with the
> idea of ancient things and ideas. when he built constantinople, he had
> various ancient obelisks, etc. brought there, from such varied sources as
> ancient egypt and 5th century bc greece. he and i share this fascination
> with ancient religions.
>       
   No problem with this.

> diocletian (one of his predecessors) first set up 'dioceses', which were
> simply provinces, in charge of each of which he placed a 'vicar'.

   This is suspect. Diocletian was one of the worst of the persecuting
   Roman Emperors. Interesting Pun. 

[I think the intent is that Diocletian set up this organization as a
secular administrative tool, which was then adopted by the church.
Surely no one could believe that Diocletian set up the church
organization directly.  --clh]

> 
> anyhow, all this may be old hat to some of you (i find it fascinating), but
> can anyone comment on the validity of the statements made on the show? 

  For the Doctrinal point of View, look up Anthony Conairis work on the
Nicene Creed. (This man is probably a distant relative of Admiral Wilhelm
Canaris, Chief of the Abwehr, who concieved Operation Valkurie, the plan
to assinate Hitler, incarcerate the SS, and surrender. Many of the Abwehr
were motivated by their faith to participate.)

  For the historical perpective, St. Athanasius'es works gives good insight.


> [I think somebody was confusing opinion with fact.  There are
> certainly many Christians who believe that the combination of Church
> and State created by Constantine was a mistake.  But I don't know
> of anyone who has documented any cynical motives on the part of
> Constantine.

   I agree. See Jack Sparks'es Mindbenders. The theme of this book is
to equate heterodox with non-compliance with already accepted standards,
such as the Nicene Creed. Interesting is his argument that the Church
of Christ's "No Creed but Christ." led to the infiltration by Jim Jones,
and the Jonestown massacre. Sparks goes on to demonstrate the slogan's
sophistery and nihilism.

> 
> This account of the Nicene creed is, to say the least, oversimplified.
> It's certainly true that Constantine was quite upset that Christians
> were fighting on theological grounds, and that he insisted that they
> come to agreement.  In many ways he seemed interested that they come
> to some agreement than in the details of what it was.  But the Nicene
> creed was developed out of a very complex political process, and is
> not the result of any one person.
> 
> --clh]   

  
  Right! Separation of Church and State is not simple (Example, all Islamic
States, and the Habsburg Empire opt for Union of Church and State.), but
is almost a necessity. 

  What is an Emperor to do? Let a little Civil Strife develop into a Full-blown
Civil War?  His original objective was to keep the peace, and his power.
Objectives change. I consider his conversion a milacle, but are not miricles
involved in the lives of Saints?  Think of St. Ambrose, who was Governor
of Rome. He had to bring his Police/Guards/Private Army (whichever is
applicable) to Milan to see to it that the election of the new Bishop was
fair and peaceful. Ambrose was elected ! He might have been happier seeing
someone else get the job, and definitely richer, because he had to resign
his governmental post to become Bishop. On the other hand, to do his job
as Governor, he had to maintain domestic tranquility, even if it meant
resigning. What is a Governor to do? The man became one of the 4 Fathers of
the Church. 

-ceb