The Baptism of CONSTANTINE THE GREAT.
While reading John Julius Norwich's history of "Byzantium" I stumbled across an account of Constantine's baptism which isn't entirely irrelevant to the musings I've indulged in on that topic in this 'blog'. Most readers will be aware that Constantine the Great is the emperor who made Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire.

It might come as a surprise to learn that he was only baptised when he was on his deathbed in 337AD, twenty five years after his victory at the Battle of the Milvian Bridge when he is said to have seen the symbol of the Cross in the sky and told to "conquer with this sign".

I quote JJN;
Why - the question has been asked all through history - why did Constantine delay his baptism until he was on his deathbed? The most obvious answer - and the most likely - is Gibbon's:
"The sacrament of baptism was supposed to contain a full and absolute expiation of sin; and the soul was instantly restored to its original purity, and entitled to the promise of eternal salvation. Among the proselytes of Christianity, there were many who judged it imprudent to precipitate a salutary rite, which could not be repeated; to throw away an inestimable privilege, which could never be recovered."
There was indeed nothing unusual, in those early days of Christianity, in deferring baptism until the last possible moment; forty three years later, we shall find the devout Theodosius the Great doing much the same.

I guess there is a certain logic to this approach to baptism if one starts with an overly sacramental view of the ordinance. No doubt a Roman emperor might anticipate having to engage in some realpolitik which may not sit easily with a Christian conscience. Constantine was guilty of many sins not least the murder of his wife and son; so, given this understanding of baptism, it might indeed be "prudent" to defer it.

The problem with Constantine's baptism is that it seems to be a crude attempt to manipulate God Himself. It is as if Constantine is placing his faith in the rite rather than in God. But more than that Constantine seems to believe that only those sins committed prior to baptism are covered and after that 'you are on your own!' Saved by grace but kept by works sort of thinking!

Of course it is not for me to say whether Constantine is saved or not ("The Lord knows those who are his!") but I do think that it is worth noting those points where 'alarm bells' start ringing. Am I accusing anyone of following Constantine's baptismal logic? No, I am not aiming this at those fellow believers who hold to Covenantal Theology (eg LG). I do wonder how easily it sits with those who hold to Federal Vision theology though.

I accept that I will be accused of attempting an 'argument from absurdity' - that I have selected some very extreme and untypical examples to critique - but my purpose is not to project these views onto anyone in particular but to offer them up as interesting discussion points. Well...... at least I find them interesting!