Sacralist Sacrilege and the Constantinian Shift

https://breakpoint.org/thank-god-for-constantine/

It is Stonestreet that misunderstands the impact of Constantine and the result of his legalization. The fact that he put the cross on soldier's shields already marked a turning point - the identification of the Kingdom of Heaven with the legions of Rome. It is literally difficult to conceive of something more satanic than this.

One doesn't know whether to roll one's eyes, laugh, or cry when reading of Constantine's tolerance and how it was only later under Theodosius that Christianity was legislated. It's an exercise in hair splitting, a distinction without a difference. The one simply and logically led to the other. Constantine got the ball rolling and Theodosius finished it. And if he didn't, then Charlemagne and others did. Is Stonestreet really this obtuse?

Serious critics of Constantine don't believe that he dictated doctrine nor do they fall for the deceptions of Dan Brown. It was nice of Stonestreet to lump all these together wasn't it? I call it slippery verging on straw man argumentation.

Constantine may have been performing in the traditional role of emperor but is Stonestreet going to ignore that was anything but traditional in terms of the Church? The scene in Nicaea marks a substantial shift, a real watershed in Church history. If he can't see this, then one doesn't know what to say.

While we certainly are glad that the persecution stopped and cannot begrudge those at the time who celebrated it, a little reflection is in order. The cessation of persecution and the myriad shifts that took place fundamentally reordered and ultimately redefined the Church. No longer counter-cultural, its new place of status and respect led to a new and unbiblical form of counter-culture - monasticism. It was also inevitable that within a very short time you would have Christians persecuting Christians and that's just what happened - a point completely ignored by the likes of Stonestreet. For the faithful, the persecutions did not stop for long. Groups like the Novatianists soon were persecuted by Constantine and his progeny with the exception of Julian the Apostate. This last of the 'pagan' emperors had no interest in persecuting groups that he viewed as divergent sects.

So Stonestreet speaks in ignorance as it was Constantine and the precedent established by him and his successors that led to later horrors such as the Inquisition. And at best the order created by Constantine was never more than paganism dressed up in counterfeit Christian garb - a corrupt outfit later appropriated by the Bishops of Rome.

He further errs when he states that Constantine furthered Christian evangelism. Patrick might be an exception but for the most part the model of evangelism shifted away from New Testament norms. As Christendom was forged it became a new geopolitical bloc functioning in the same way as something like the EU or NATO does today. Evangelism primarily targeted rulers who upon 'conversion' legislated Christianity in top-down fashion. That's not the gospel but a gross perversion of it. Evangelism was changed into evangelisation which was the long cultural process of transformation - often through a lot of syncretism and compromise.

Roman Catholicism is in many ways a fusion of the cultural and religious practice of Greco-Roman Late Antiquity and the Germanic cultures of central and northern Europe. This distortion of New Testament Christianity, this complete re-casting of the Heavenly Kingdom proclaimed by Christ is what Stonestreet is advocating. For centuries the underground Church rightly identified this fusion - this syncretism advocated and championed by Stonestreet as the kingdom of Antichrist.

We do not thank God for Constantine unless we wish to than God for bringing judgment on a Church that was by the fourth century already losing its way. As far as the freedom of faith Stonestreet speaks of - the historical record tells a different story. And the gospel that supposedly flourished under this evil man and as a result of his actions? It is clearly not the gospel of the New Testament and as such is accursed.

The only thing we can say about Stonestreet is that he is consistent. He is adamant in his beliefs and determined to promote them even though they result in people being deceived and Christianity redefined. He preaches another gospel.