Resources on Constantine's Conversion And a Question

[christianyouth]

Hey all,

Do you have any recommended resources on Constantine's conversion? I have been thinking about it, and it has raised some serious questions. Today, for example, when I was meditating, I thought about how I never heard of Constantine making deliberations about what Christian sect, or what Christian bishop to submit himself under, probably implying that Early Christianity wasn't as divided as we see it today. But I want to research this and see if it's true, and if it's true, what are the implications. For example, if there was a semi-unified Christianity, why was it unified? Was it unified because they all had similar doctrine? Was it unified because they all had similar goals? Was it unified at an institutional level?

So these are questions I have, if any of you know of a book to answer these, or if you yourself know some answers to these questions, please post them.

 

[Scott1]

For an overall assessment of the Roman Empire, there is no substitute for the classic written by an unbeliever. He has an interesting review of Constantine, his conversion, Christianity in general and the (Holy) Roman Empire:

Amazon.com: The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire: Volumes 1-3 (Everyman's Library): Edward Gibbon: Books

 

[christianyouth]

For an overall assessment of the Roman Empire, there is no substitute for the classic written by an unbeliever. He has an interesting review of Constantine, his conversion, Christianity in general and the (Holy) Roman Empire:

Amazon.com: The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire: Volumes 1-3 (Everyman's Library): Edward Gibbon: Books

Thank you sir.

 

[CredoFidoSpero]

I agree with Scott, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire is a very good resource with a good, detailed history of Constantine, including his interaction with the bishops and Christian leaders of the time. Gibbon takes the view that Constantine was first a protector of Christianity (as a reversal of the public policy of the previous emperors), then for a long time a proselyte, and not really a convert until the illness at the end of his life when he became a catechumen and accepted baptism. I'm not sure I agree with that. I think he was probably a true convert long before his baptism. It was not uncommon at that time for people to wait until old age or near death to be baptised - it was seen of a purification of all your sins up to that point.

I think its best to keep in mind he was probably a Roman Emperor first. To answer your questions, I do not that he was a part of any sect, and I don't think he would have submitted to any bishop. And I think the Christian world at that time was more divided than unified. I really don't think it was unified on a more institutional level at all at that time. It was more the local bishops of each large city, though there was a good deal of unity of common goals and doctrines. But there were still a lot of fierce, and rather violent, controveries raging. The Arian controversy was probably the biggest at the time.

It was Constantine who called the Council of Nicea together in 325 to try to bring more unity to the Christian world at that time, deliberately choosing bishops from all over the empire, and kind of ordering them to come up with a more unified creed. He saw all the religous controversy as just too disruptive and bad for the empire. And he did step in as emperor to judge on some of the Christian controversies, such as with the Donatists.

I believe he was a Christian, but he did probably have more of a Roman pagan perspective on religion, at least in the beginning. Because he attributed his successes and prosperity to the Christian God, he decided that God was most worthy of religio - the precise religious duties paid to the gods in the Roman world. And that the success and prosperity of the Roman empire would be best served by establishing Christianity as the religion of the empire.

Those are just some of my thoughts . I've never read a biography of Constantine, though I've studied a lot of Roman history. And I like Peter Brown's The Rise of Western Christendom, 2nd ed., for a very good, very readable, history of Christianity through the 1st millennium.

 

[awretchsavedbygrace]

I agree with Scott, The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire is a very good resource with a good, detailed history of Constantine, including his interaction with the bishops and Christian leaders of the time. Gibbon takes the view that Constantine was first a protector of Christianity (as a reversal of the public policy of the previous emperors), then for a long time a proselyte, and not really a convert until the illness at the end of his life when he became a catechumen and accepted baptism. I'm not sure I agree with that. I think he was probably a true convert long before his baptism. It was not uncommon at that time for people to wait until old age or near death to be baptised - it was seen of a purification of all your sins up to that point.

I think its best to keep in mind he was probably a Roman Emperor first. To answer your questions, I do not that he was a part of any sect, and I don't think he would have submitted to any bishop. And I think the Christian world at that time was more divided than unified. I really don't think it was unified on a more institutional level at all at that time. It was more the local bishops of each large city, though there was a good deal of unity of common goals and doctrines. But there were still a lot of fierce, and rather violent, controveries raging. The Arian controversy was probably the biggest at the time.

It was Constantine who called the Council of Nicea together in 325 to try to bring more unity to the Christian world at that time, deliberately choosing bishops from all over the empire, and kind of ordering them to come up with a more unified creed. He saw all the religous controversy as just too disruptive and bad for the empire. And he did step in as emperor to judge on some of the Christian controversies, such as with the Donatists.

I believe he was a Christian, but he did probably have more of a Roman pagan perspective on religion, at least in the beginning. Because he attributed his successes and prosperity to the Christian God, he decided that God was most worthy of religio - the precise religious duties paid to the gods in the Roman world. And that the success and prosperity of the Roman empire would be best served by establishing Christianity as the religion of the empire.

Those are just some of my thoughts . I've never read a biography of Constantine, though I've studied a lot of Roman history. And I like Peter Brown's The Rise of Western Christendom, 2nd ed., for a very good, very readable, history of Christianity through the 1st millennium.

The "unity" he was trying to accomplish was so that the church would not be divided over the heresy Arius brought forth. Stating that Christ was a created being and not of the same essence as the father. Thank God for Athanasius who fought arianism is whole life. Constantine placed friendship with a heretic as more important than the Deity of our LORD and Savior, Christ Jesus.

 

[christianyouth]

Ok, well I just checked with my library and they have this book, so I'm going to stop by later tonight and pick it up. They also have a book called "The Church in the age of Constantine", so with both of these resources I'm sure I'll get my questions answered.