# Constantine: Friend of Foe?



## RamistThomist (Nov 13, 2004)

I am doing an ancient history paper on Constantine (see title above). At the moment I am reading Gibbon for his spin on Constantine. I will try to examine whether he had a positive influence or negative on Christianity. I might also look at the duty (or not) of the Civil Magistrate enforcing, or at least protecting, the Faith. I have read Peter Leithart's (I know, heretic!) _Against Christianity_ and his last chapter is "For Constantine," although it is hard to know what he is saying at times.

Any thoughts or online resources?


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 13, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Finn McCool_
> I am doing an ancient history paper on Constantine (see title above). At the moment I am reading Gibbon for his spin on Constantine. I will try to examine whether he had a positive influence or negative on Christianity. I might also look at the duty (or not) of the Civil Magistrate enforcing, or at least protecting, the Faith. I have read Peter Leithart's (I know, heretic!) _Against Christianity_ and his last chapter is "For Constantine," although it is hard to know what he is saying at times.
> 
> Any thoughts or online resources?



First, don't trust anything Leithart has to say. Not because he is a heretic, but because he is a nut. He has no clue.

Second, don't rely too heavily on Gibbon. My suggestion is to get J.B. Bury's work on the Roman Empire, read Ostrogorsky's comments on Constantine in his Byzantine studies.

Then I would read some reputable Church history sources (say, Schaff).


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 13, 2004)

How reliable would Eusiebius be? I am reading Gibbon because, and this is going to sound weird, J H Thornwell recommended reading Gibbon, Milton, and Shakespeare to improve one's command of the English language. Ok, that aside. I know Gibbon is rather sceptical of Christianity at times and I do read him with an arched eyebrow (I also like W G T Shedd's comments on Gibbon). Thanks for the other works; I will check them out.


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 13, 2004)

LC's library has the work by BUry; I am going to check it out.
THanks


----------



## Bladestunner316 (Nov 13, 2004)

foe


----------



## fredtgreco (Nov 13, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Finn McCool_
> LC's library has the work by BUry; I am going to check it out.
> THanks



You will like Bury. He is an excellent writer, and he writes history as if you were there. I hadn't read him or Ostrogorsky (who is also excellent) in years, but picked them up again for a Church History Paper on Photius. I realized how much I missed them, and can't wait to do this stuff again with my boys for homeschooling.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Nov 15, 2004)

Constantine did good, I think, in establishing Christianity as the state religion and enacting the first Christian Sabbatarian legislation. However, negatively, he also did much to mix Christianity with pagan religious influences -- such as turning the cross into the symbol of Christianity, decreeing that Christmas should be celebrated on December 25 in order to co-opt a pagan holiday that coincided on that date, retaining his pagan titles, and encouraging pilgrimages to Jerusalem to supposed holy sites. On balance, I think he helped advance the cause of the Roman Babylon more than the crown rights of King Jesus. However, he also convened the Council of Nicea from which we get the Nicean Creed, which I reckon is a good contribution to the church.


----------



## Contra_Mundum (Nov 15, 2004)

What we need most (In my humble opinion) in looking at history--past or present--is more and more biblical knowledge. Here's why: because the more developed our understanding of the will of God, the better we are able to see and analyze the data of history. We need a highly organized sense of what "ought" to be, so that we can correctly interpret the complex, and hardly cut-and-dried nature of the "battleground of history" and the people we find there. 

Instead of looking at Constantine as either "friend" or "foe" of Christianity, maybe it would be better to view him as simply a manager of the City of Man, within which geography the City of God was experiencing significant development. I think Constantine was an opportunist and a pragmatist, with very little religious knowledge.

Without postulating Constantine's state of conversion (genuine or not), I'm personally convinced that his rise to power represents a tactical change in Satan's strategy. Persecutions had not slowed Christianity's growth. Satan's influence could increase more rapidly within the church, and on a grander scale, if "counting the cost" could be made to seem "not too much" or even a "net asset." Instead of being a menace and agent of hostility toward the church, the State would now be seen as an agent of favor--and favoritism. Good relations with the church and even positions of influence within it would now be paths to worldly success.

But this tactical reversal would have strategic costs as well. A church free of persecution, able to gather (even summoned!) in a powerful voice-making body, could in the providence of God effectively put down the Arian heresy--even when the Arians boasted much political capital. The Devil is history's biggest loser. His tactics change as he seeks advantages here and there, but his strategy is hopeless. And God's is the victory.

As the church, we live in God's history. We "succeed" when we keep foremost in mind the cosmic struggle, and only secondarily the historic trail and the present circumstances. Constantine, in my view, was both weal and woe for biblical religion. Proverbs 21:1.


----------



## VirginiaHuguenot (Nov 15, 2004)

I like the way you articulate the big picture, Bruce. Thanks!


----------



## Scott (Nov 15, 2004)

Constantine was a friend, albeit mixed. Anyway, read Eusebius' Life of Constantine. It is a bit of a puff piece, but essential primary source reading on the topic.


----------



## Scott (Nov 15, 2004)

BTW, Gibbon was an avowed atheist and anti-Christian.


----------



## RamistThomist (Nov 15, 2004)

> _Originally posted by Scott_
> BTW, Gibbon was an avowed atheist and anti-Christian.



I always classified him as a Sceptic (I know, the difference is vague). I think is _religous_ insistence on reason and rationality is a bit amusing.


----------



## SmokingFlax (Nov 15, 2004)

Nice summary Bruce.


----------



## ConfederateTheocrat (Dec 29, 2004)

> First, don't trust anything Leithart has to say. Not because he is a heretic, but because he is a nut. He has no clue.



Could you provide evidence to him being a nut? What do you mean by "he has no clue"? Is this related to Constantine?


----------



## WrittenFromUtopia (Oct 30, 2005)

> _Originally posted by ConfederateTheocrat_
> 
> 
> > First, don't trust anything Leithart has to say. Not because he is a heretic, but because he is a nut. He has no clue.
> ...





I would like to know why he is a nut.


----------

