J
johnnyjones
Guest
Would Christianity have caught on and developed as a world religion if Constantine hadn’t converted and had such an influence? Or can we just say it was Gods plan?
- Status
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
What ifs like this can be hard to asses because these factors are often entangled with other factors. In other words changing one factor would change many other factors. It may be worth contrasting areas where Christianity spread, where there were failed attempts, and what was going on in history at the time. It also may be worth looking at areas where a majority of the people are not Christian and examining why that’s the case.
Pardon my mistakes. Sent from my mobile device.
Pardon my mistakes. Sent from my mobile device.
A
Alberti_Devoveo
Guest
From my brief studying of Early Church history, Christianity was spreading rather well without Constantine’s intervention.
J
jimmy
Guest
That is a good point. It may have been the case that Christianity would have caught on more strongly in the Assyrian empire. The Assyrians had a negative view of Christians for a while due to Christianity being the religion of Rome. Had that been the case, maybe Islam wouldn’t have grown like it did.
C
cornbread_r2
Guest
From what I’ve read elsewhere, about 10% of the empire was Christian in Constantine’s time. Of that 10% a sizable number were followers of Arianism as well as other, lesser known, variations on the Trinitarian concept. If Constantine had not forced the issue at Nicea and backed the Roman Catholic view – thereby rendering all the others views as heretical and persecutable – it seems likely that all of these other variations would have survived too and Christianity would look far different today. Christianity would have survived, but it’s up to question if Roman Catholicism would be the dominant view.
B
benjammin
Guest
Being a student of history, I somewhat agree with the Arian Heresy theory. However, even though Constantine called the Council of Nicea, I have a feeling some bishops would fight against it. Also, even though remnants of Arianism continued, there would have been those against it and would have stopped it or at worse we’d have two churches.
However, I think the Roman Catholic Church would have prevailed at some point. I know i’ll get hammered for this by those who are not of the faith, but i think God would have provided some way for his church to grow like he has in our timeline.
J
Justin_Swanton
Guest
A few things:
From what I’ve read up to a quarter of the population was Christian by the time of Constantine.
Constantine convened the Council of Nicea to establish peace in the Church, not to support or oppose Arianism (he had no particular opinions on religious doctrine). It was the majority of Catholic bishops at the council who decisively rejected Arianism, forcing it underground until the death of Constantine. Arianism resurfaced only because it gained the political support of Constantine’s sons, notable Constantius. Otherwise it was going the same way as other heterodox movements - i.e. nowhere.
The Church had just survived 10 years of the most savage persecution it had ever endured, and survived it to such an extent that the pagan persecutors themselves lost heart. Galerius, who had started the persecution, stopped it before his death and even asked the Christians to pray for his welfare (he was mortally ill). With or without Constantine the Church was set to triumph over paganism. Constantine just accelerated the process.
Paganism itself was spiritually bankrupt. When Julian the Apostate attempted to restore it as a serious religious alternative to Christianity in the middle of the 4th century he was mocked even by his fellow pagans. Alternative spiritualities, like Mithraism, did not have the across-the-board appeal of Christianity, and influenced only select groups of the population, like the army.
Constantine was not an unmixed blessing for the Church. His endorsement of Christianity led to large numbers of superficial conversions by pagans who simply followed the new direction the wind was blowing. These ‘baptised pagans’ caused immense trouble in the Arian crisis, using religion as an excuse to defy imperial authority and indulge in widespread rioting and mayhem. One might argue that a slow but solid conversion process would have been better for the Church - but Providence knew what it was doing in any case.
M
Marc_Anthony
Guest
Yeah, I’d say in my extremely uneducated opinion that St. Constantine was not the reason Christianity succeeded but was almost certainly the reason Roman Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity became the dominant forms, setting the stage for the rest of Christian history-you may notice that every denomination that is judged as “conservative” or “liberal” uses the Catholic Church as the standard, even if it’s subconscious. Catholicism’s impact is not to be dismissed even by the more radical Protestants.
M
Marc_Anthony
Guest
Just curious-I once spoke with somebody on here who said almost exactly what you did. He started a thread on the subject. Was this you?
In any case, the Trinity has been explained in a way that’s different from how you explained it-but not as different as you might think. You might be interested to see what St. Thomas Aquinas had to say about the subject. Interesting stuff.
J
johnnyjones
Guest
Was the “hand of God” upon Constantine to facilitate the rise of Catholicism?
S
Shlomo
Guest
It would have succeeded spiritually instead of politically
B
beehumble
Guest
What people need to grasp and fully comprehend is that God actually has a plan (yep) for the salvation of mankind, and He is implementing it and nothing man nor Satan does can stop it.
We don’t know all the details of the plan, but we do know some details since they have already occurred, and we do have the general outline from prophetic Scriptures such as Revelation, the Matthew 24 Olivet Discourse, Book of Daniel, Ezekiel, Joel etc.
Some of the details on the project plan of God as we know it:
The Resurrection.
The cosmos is fallen, has ‘died’ (to sin) due to man’s apostasy from God in the garden of Eden. But God sent His Son to resurrect the entire cosmos, and the resurrection of His Son is the beginning of the resurrection of the cosmos, and it will end upon His return. Jesus identified Himself as this part of the plan, when He said, “I am the Resurrection.” Of what? Later He answered that when He said “Behold, I make all things new!”
The Immaculate Conception.
In order for “the Resurrection” (Jesus) to be born into the world and die to make all things new, He needed a pure vessel, an immaculate womb. So at her conception in Ann, God kept Blessed Mary free from the stain of original sin, and filled with the Holy Spirit so she remained free from all sin. Blessed Mary identified this part of the plan, which she fulfills, when she told St. Bernadette, “I am the Immaculate Conception.”
The other parts of God’s plan in general are known. We know Jesus set up the Catholic Church to hold His truth until He returns, and to spread His truth across the globe. And once that is accomplished, He will return (this does not mean every person will become Catholic or Christian - from Scriptures we know there will always be the wheat and tares up until Jesus returns - it means some or most people of all nations in existence at that time will have heard of Jesus and His gospel, and some will accept it, and some will hear it but not accept it.)
We know too, shortly before He returns, there will be a great falling away of Christians, accompanied by a time of persecution and dominance of anti-Christian thought and practice (an ‘hour’ of Satan), followed by the return of Jesus, where the earth and the entire cosmos is resurrected (restored) to its original glory, and as part of that restoration man resurrects too.
Constantine, although of less importance to the plan than Jesus and Blessed Mary, is another detail in the plan, the part about the Gospel spreading across the globe before Jesus returns. Constantine’s victory over Maxentius ensured the Roman Empire, a significant power in the world, would in large part ‘convert’ to Catholic Christianity and lead to a Christian Europe, which would become a major ‘spreader’ of the Gospel to the rest of the world.
So to ask if Christianity would succeed without Constantine is tantamount to asking would God’s plan succeed without some of its parts? It is a nonsensical question since why would He put unnecessary parts in His plan? Just as He intervened with the Immaculate Conception and the incarnation of His Son, He intervened with Constantine when the sign of the Son of Man appeared to him, with the words ‘In this sign, Conquer’.
I guess the larger speculation could be, “How else could God have saved/redeemed mankind and the cosmos? Could He have come up with any other plan?” Again, though this is nonsensical, because God is perfect and that means His plan is the perfect one, even if we cannot see it.
My two cents, anyway.
God bless you.
M
Marc_Anthony
Guest
I doubt Constantine looked at it that way but from our perspective, yeah, of course.
People forget-Constantine is a Saint. Saint Constantine the Great, Equal to the Apostles (yes, that is his title. It is referring to his influence in spreading Christianity, as the Apostles did).
C
cornbread_r2
Guest
The benefit Roman Catholicism received from its relationship with Constantine seems to pale in comparison to the benefit accruing to the Church from a forged document attributed to him. See The Donation of Constantine.
R
robwar
Guest
Jesus said that “on this rock I will build my church and the gates of hell will not prevail against it”. The Catholic Church would have continued whether there was a Constatine or not. We not not built on Constantine but the rock that Jesus set up.
P
patrick457
Guest
Or Byzantine Christianity.
The ironic thing is, Constantine was baptized on his deathbed by an Arian bishop (Eusebius of Nicomedia, not to be confused with Eusebius of Caesarea). Nicaea didn’t really solve the Arian ‘problem’, did it? No. The Eastern court and the major positions in the Eastern Church at that time were held by Arians or Arian sympathizers. Again, case in point, Eusebius: he was close to Constantine and his son Constantius II, baptized Constantine on his deathbed, and was the tutor of Julian. Eusebius did sign the confession at Nicaea, albeit unwillingly; a few months after the council he was exiled for keeping continual contacts with Arius and the exiled Arians. He eventually managed to convince Constantine that Arius’ views do not conflict with the decrees of Nicaea, and was pardoned after three years. He then used his influence to bring the whole machinery of the state into action in order to impose his views upon the Church: he was able to exile three key opponents, no small feat since all three were men of renown: Eustathius of Antioch (330), Athanasius of Alexandria (335) and Marcellus of Ancyra (336). He also managed to become Patriarch of Constantinople when Constantius II expelled (the orthodox) Paul I using a rigged synod of Arian bishops. Eusebius of Nicomedia’s influence was so strong that Arianism did not officially lose its influence in the East until the Constantinian dynasty had ended and Theodosius I (the guy who made Nicene Christianity the only legitimate imperial religion) became emperor. Arianism lingered in the West among the Germanic ‘barbarians’ for a little time more, until they themselves succumbed to their Nicene neighbors or accepted Nicene Christianity.
J
johnnyjones
Guest
I obviously didn’t think the question was “nonsensical”. Questions are often asked that others may have greater insight on. I didn’t (and I don’t think most) view Constantine as a figure that parallels something like the Immaculate Conception, although I see where you are going. I would assume it goes back to all of us having a purpose. The George Baily of “It’s A Wonderful Life” being a glaring example of that or our own lives. If so and so wasn’t born, this or that wouldn’t have taken place.
But I think we don’t often look at every single series of events as being something God ordained, even the horrors. Constantine had free will, he could have gone another way, but that opens up another whole debate. Again though, I never really consciously aligned Constantine with biblical or religious (saints) persons but your notion of equal planning does add to the conversation.
L
lemondiesel
Guest
christianity? yes. catholicism? no.
L
lemondiesel
Guest
Would it have competed with all the other emerging forms of Christianity whose texts were burned after the formation of the Bible?
C
cap76
Guest
One would have expected stronger resistance from the church to rising from pauper to prince. Surely Jesus would have had problems with making Christianity a state religion. “Jesus answered, “My kingdom is not of this world. If my kingdom were of this world, my servants would have been fighting,”
“Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its place. For all who take the sword will perish by the sword.”
Even so, you are right. “Our God is in the Heavens and He does all that He pleases.”
- Status