I need help understanding the Fathers

[Eaglejet23]

Okay, I’ve been reading Jimmy Akin Father’s Know Best, and it is a good book. I find myself struggling to understand the early Christians and Church fathers. Below I have left some quotes of the early Christians and Church fathers that I can’t understand. I would appreciate it if only anyone well versed in the Father could help understand what they are saying. I have underlined the parts I’m specifically confused about.

Tertullian Of Carthage
"Truly you are [honorable] in your modesty; bearing an open forehead for sinning, but an abashed one for deprecating! I give no place to bashfulness when I am a gainer by its loss; when itself in some son exhorts the man, saying, Respect not me; it is better that I perish through you, i.e. than you through me."[Repentance (c. A.D 203)].

St Augustine
"For he works all these things in them who made them vessels of mercy, who also elected them in his Son before the foundation of the world by election of grace." “And if by grace, then is it no more of works, otherwise grace is no more grace.” For they were not so called as not to be elected, in respect of which it is said, “For many are called but few are elected”; but because they were called according to the purpose, they are surely also elected by the election of grace, not of any precedent merits of theirs, because to them grace is all merit." [Rebuke and Grace(c. A.D 426)].

St Basil Of Caesarea

The woman who purposely destroys her unborn child is guilty of murder. With us there is no nice enquiry as to its being formed or unformed. In this case it is not only the being about to be born who is vindicated, but the woman in her attack upon herself; because in most cases women who make such attempts die. Letters 188:2 (374 A.D).

Lactantius

But men, that there may be no crime with which they may not pollute their hands, deprive souls as yet innocent and simple of the light which they themselves have not given. Can any one, indeed, expect that they would abstain from the blood of others who do not abstain even from their own? But these are without any controversy wicked and unjust. [Divine Institutes 6:20(c. A.D 307)].

John Chrysostom

“Wherefore I beseech you, flee fornication. . . . Why sow where the ground makes it its care to destroy the fruit? —where there are many efforts at abortion?—where there is murder before the birth? ( Homilies on Romans 24 [A.D. 391]).

“For to cut off our members has been from the beginning a work of demonical agency, and satanic device, that they may bring up a bad report upon the works of God, that they may mar this living creature, that imputing all not to the choice, but to the nature of our members, the more part of them may sin in security as being irresponsible, and doubly harm this living creature, both by mutilating the members and by impeding the forwardness of the free choice in behalf of good deeds.” John Chrysostom, Homilies on Matthew 62:3 (A.D. 391)."

 

[Vico]

Augustine taught predestination based upon God’s foreknowledge, but at different times he expressed different ideas regarding it, such that it is not in harmony with the dogma today.

Pharmakeia means the use of medicine, drugs or spells. Yes, in biblical times there were chemical means of abortion.

 

[Todd_Easton]

Tertullian Of Carthage
"Truly you are [honorable] in your modesty; bearing an open forehead for sinning, but an abashed one for deprecating! I give no place to bashfulness when I am a gainer by its loss; when itself in some son exhorts the man, saying, Respect not me; it is better that I perish through you, i.e. than you through me."[Repentance (c. A.D 203)].

I’m not particularly well-versed but here are my thoughts…
With sarcasm (“Truly you are honorable in your modesty”), Tertullian points out the inconsistency of those who are not at all modest (“bearing an open forehead”) when it comes to sinning but too modest (bearing “an abashed” forehead) when it comes to confessing their sins and doing penance (“deprecating”). Tertullian then points out that modesty is not an end in itself but a means to gain eternal life. If for some reason modesty is preventing you from confessing your sins, then even modesty “itself” would admit that modesty must be set aside (“respect[ed] not,” “perish”), lest you die in your sins and you be damned forever (“perish”).

 

[Todd_Easton]

St Basil Of Caesarea

The woman who purposely destroys her unborn child is guilty of murder. With us there is no nice enquiry as to its being formed or unformed. In this case it is not only the being about to be born who is vindicated, but the woman in her attack upon herself; because in most cases women who make such attempts die. Letters 188:2 (374 A.D).

Here are my thoughts…

With us there is no nice enquiry as to its being formed or unformed It makes no difference to us and so we do not enquire into whether the unborn child is formed, i.e., a fetus with discernable human features, or unformed, i.e., an embryo with no discernable human features. In other words, regardless of the unborn child’s stage of development, it is murder.

In this case it is not only the being about to be born who is vindicated, but the woman in her attack on herself; because in most cases women who make such attempts die With the woman’s guilt established, not only has her murdered unborn child been vindicated, i.e., received justice, but the woman herself has been vindicated for her dangerous attack on her own person.

John Chrysostom

“Wherefore I beseech you, flee fornication. . . . Why sow where the ground makes it its care to destroy the fruit? —where there are many efforts at abortion?—where there is murder before the birth? ( Homilies on Romans 24 [A.D. 391]).

“For to cut off our members has been from the beginning a work of demonical agency, and satanic device, that they may bring up a bad report upon the works of God, that they may mar this living creature, that imputing all not to the choice, but to the nature of our members, the more part of them may sin in security as being irresponsible, and doubly harm this living creature, both by mutilating the members and by impeding the forwardness of the free choice in behalf of good deeds.” John Chrysostom, Homilies on Matthew 62:3 (A.D. 391)."

Here are my thoughts…

Why sow where the ground makes it its care to destroy fruit? This is a euphemism for having sexual intercourse (“sow [seed]”) under circumstances where any resulting children (“fruit”) are likely to be aborted (“destroyed”).

imputing all not to the choice, but to the nature of our members St John is writing against those who were mutilating parts of their physical bodies, such as those who were making themselves eunuchs, as a remedy for sin because they wrongly thought that those physical body parts themselves were responsible for their evil deeds, rather than rightly ascribing the responsibility of their evil deeds to the free will choice of their own mind. Perhaps the notions that St John was writing against came from a too-literal interpretation of the words of Christ in Matthew 5:29-30 or the words of St Paul in Romans 7:17-25.