Quote:
Originally Posted by pentecostisalive
What Constantine did was merge Pagan Religion with Christian Religion for his own purposes.
He merged the trinity (a pagan concept) into church doctrine.
He brought the methods of pagan worship into the house of God. (Hence the incense burning, etc in the Catholic Church)
And much, much more.
He didn't completely change all church doctrine, but tried to reconcile both into one melting pot. That is what is happening today in Apostolic ranks.
|
To be fair to the old emperor, he probably didn't really care what went on in the church as along as there was public order in the streets. Constantine was a very pragmatic man and instilled with the Roman skepticism of the Stoic tradition. Not much of a religious thinker at all.
And most RCC's would jump on you for the incense statement. They will rightly point to the Temple Worship of the Old Testament and it's use of incense. They also make a big deal about some of the prophetic visions in which incense is used copiously in the heavens. Burning incense is as pagan as kneeling in prayer - but it's also Biblical if you accept that application from the OT.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pentecostisalive
That is what is happening today. Churches are allowing trinitarians to preach in their pulpits. They are incorporating worldly, pagan worship styles into their services. Some and welcoming Baptists, Catholics to speak at their services. And things like this.
|
There was a time in the Apostolic movement when Trinitarians were the only ones allowed to preach in the pulpits simply because all Apostolics were Trinitarians. That has been slowly weeded out among the Oneness ranks, but you will still see it today. I don't see this as "backsliding" but rather as some folks simply hanging on to their older practices.
Remember, the Oneness movement is less than 100 years old.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pentecostisalive
It is interesting that Constantine was only allowed to do this by the church, due to an attitude and message of tolerance that had been propagated for years before. It had already started in the messages to the churches of Revelation, and that snowball results in the actions at the council of Nicea and Constantine.
I don't have time to post an indepth answer, but this is an overview.
|
That's an interesting take. I think you misspoke when you said that the "tolerance" that you disapprove of began in the Book of Revelation. Maybe, "it was first condemned in the Book of Rev?" There were those who allowed "Jezebel" to teach, the Nicolaitans and etc.
Also, I have to say that you are flat out wrong about the "attitude and message of tolerance that had been propagated for years before;" with all due respect. The almost atheistic Constantine was the best example of "tolerance" in his day, and then it was only because peace meant prosperity in his empire. The church offered no "tolerance" and rarely did you ever hear voices of "compromise."
The church of Constantine's day was comprised of bigots of every sort and warring factions that were notorious for rioting and arson. Even though the party of Athanasius seemed to have won the day at Nicea, Athanasius himself was soon exiled after being set upon by an angry mob of anti-Trinitarians. In his old age he was finally allowed to come back home, but Constantine's successors were all Arians who opposed the doctrine of the Trinity and they persecuted "orthodoxy" up until the time of Julian the Apostate. Then Julian tried to reintroduce his own brand paganism but met with little success.