Skip to content
The Historic Faith
Sign in
All Questions
Question 9
The lesson highlights a startling Nicaea canon: converts who renounced military service but returned were barred and then treated as penitent for years (“three years as hearers… ten years prostrate”). What does this suggest about early Christian assumptions regarding obedience, repentance, and the cost of discipleship—and how does it collide with modern evangelical ideas of grace, assurance, and “freedom”?
Another way to ask: What does the Nicaea rule about long public repentance for people who left the army and then returned say about early Christian views of obedience and the cost of following Jesus? How does that clash with today’s ideas about grace, assurance, and freedom?

Direct Answer The canon suggests early Christians assumed obedience had real, costly consequences, and that serious compromise required long, public repentance before full fellowship. That collides with modern instincts that minimize discipline or treat major moral reversals as having little impact on church belonging.

Support from Transcript:

  • Dean quotes Nicaea canon 12: those who “cast aside their military girdles” but later returned are compared to “dogs to their own vomit.”
  • The penalty is concrete: “after… three years as hearers, they are excommunicated… but for 10 years be prostrate.”
  • Dean interprets the practice: for three years you can’t “walk into church,” then for ten years you come “on the floor asking for mercy.”
  • He emphasizes continuity: it’s “shocking” but shows things “didn’t all just collapse overnight,” meaning strict discipleship assumptions still existed even at 325.
  • He uses this in debate as evidence of early church expectations around military participation.
Discussion Follow-ups What kinds of actions today would require serious, visible repentance in our churches—if any? How do we hold together mercy and restoration with the early church’s sense that discipleship has measurable cost?

Jumpstarter 9 of 10
Back Questions Next