Why Should Protestants Trust the Church Fathers?

[TxGodfollower]

Tell them, “we’re glad that YOU like OUR Bible.”

If we can’t trust the testimony of the Early Fathers then we have no basis to call the Bible “Scripture.” Because - guess what? - the Bible (or, at least, the New Testament) comes to us courtesy of the Early Fathers.

The Bible came from the Apostles and was preserved by believers.

I don’t particularly like the Catholic Bible. I believe my King James.

Many of the other things you said in your quote were useful, but the above is more likely to start a war than a productive dialogue.

My suggestions:

1. As David mentioned, point out that the Holy Spirit chose to organize and make known the Bible… through the Church.
2. Point out that Calvin, Luther et al among the Reformers believed that it was important to read the Fathers and cited them (albeit selectively) nearly as much as Scripture.
3. Make an argument from Scripture for authority for Church Tradition. I’ve seen many excellent arguments here using the text of the Bible to show that it was meant to be read and understood in the context of the oral teaching of the Church.

Calvin and Luther weren’t perfect. They didn’t always use perfect sources.

Don’t they respect Church Elders? Some of the Fathers were disciples of the Apostles. If you don’ t want to listen to those who heard the Apostles preach, why would you want to listen to a preacher some 2000 years later? It is like the further away from the source, the clearer the message.?

Ask them this. Do they trust their pastor’s interpretation of the Bible, or their own? If they say yes. Ask them why do they trust someone’s teaching 2000 years removed from the event, over those who actually walked and had hands laid on them by the Apostles themselves.

Do you have any of those people from 2,000 years ago that I can talk to? Or do we have to rely on what someone said that someone said that someone said that someone said that someone else said to someone else over dinner while discussing what they heard from someone else who was a student of Peter? If their teachings were important to the fundamental doctrine of the faith, why didn’t they write it down and attach it to the Bible? That way, we could know what they taught, instead of relaying on a chain of fallible men to repeat something they heard years ago.

 

[JonNC]

=TxGodfollower;12572212]

Calvin and Luther weren’t perfect. They didn’t always use perfect sources.

Other than scripture, there isn’t a “perfect source”. Luther and the other Lutheran reformers did regularly site the Fathers. While the Fathers and the councils may not have been perfect, they are far better than some of the things one sees come out of American protestant groups, including some Lutherans.

Do you have any of those people from 2,000 years ago that I can talk to? Or do we have to rely on what someone said that someone said that someone said that someone said that someone else said to someone else over dinner while discussing what they heard from someone else who was a student of Peter? If their teachings were important to the fundamental doctrine of the faith, why didn’t they write it down and attach it to the Bible? That way, we could know what they taught, instead of relaying on a chain of fallible men to repeat something they heard years ago.

I don’t understand this. Much of the writings of the Fathers we have are their own writings. And much of their writings came after the apostolic era, so they would not be attached to scripture.

Jon

 

[Hockeygurl]

We do, but when an ECF has writings that are not in line with Catholic theology, then we have to listen to excuses such as well the ECF’s are not aurthoratative or yes he disagreed but eventually submitted to the church OR he was just plain wrong.

 

[TxGodfollower]

I don’t understand this. Much of the writings of the Fathers we have are their own writings. And much of their writings came after the apostolic era, so they would not be attached to scripture.

Jon

I was speaking on the oral tradition of the church fathers. Thank you for the correction.

But it begs the question, why? If tradition is equal to Scripture, why aren’t they added?

 

[Duane1966]

The Bible came from the Apostles and was preserved by believers.

I don’t particularly like the Catholic Bible. I believe my King James.

Calvin and Luther weren’t perfect. They didn’t always use perfect sources.

Do you have any of those people from 2,000 years ago that I can talk to? Or do we have to rely on what someone said that someone said that someone said that someone said that someone else said to someone else over dinner while discussing what they heard from someone else who was a student of Peter? If their teachings were important to the fundamental doctrine of the faith, why didn’t they write it down and attach it to the Bible? That way, we could know what they taught, instead of relaying on a chain of fallible men to repeat something they heard years ago.

King James is a beautiful worded Bible. Accurate it is not. And all Bibles are copies of copies of copies. And the OT? Much of that was orally handed down over 1000’s of years.

We do have those early writings of the fathers. So I don’t understand your point about talking to them. Are you saying you can’t talk to them, but you can talk to the Apostles?

I will go even farther. Those who say they don’t trust the fathers of the church are usually scared to see that what, and how they worship, is nothing like what the early Church believed and practiced.

 

[JonNC]

I was speaking on the oral tradition of the church fathers. Thank you for the correction.

But it begs the question, why? If tradition is equal to Scripture, why aren’t they added?

Well, why aren’t the creeds part of scripture? Because, in part, they were written after the apostolic era. They are, no less, authoritative statements of the faith. Not all things true and authoritative have to be in scripture.

Jon

 

[dronald]

We do, but when an ECF has writings that are not in line with Catholic theology, then we have to listen to excuses such as well the ECF’s are not aurthoratative or yes he disagreed but eventually submitted to the church OR he was just plain wrong.

My favourite response is that it was “Just his opinion.”

 

[Duane1966]

My favourite response is that it was “Just his opinion.”

In the Council of Jerusalem in Acts, there was tremendous disagreement over the issue of circumcision. If everyone at that council that was in favor of circumcision, had written their stance down, those would also be writings of ECF. But of course we know how the Church decided that disagreement. And guess what? Those that were in favor, then bent their will to those in Authority. This Is how the Church worked, and continues to work. So in other words, we would read their writings, and say, that is their opinion. The opinion, in the end that counts is the Magisterium’s.

 

[Arizona_Mike]

Because they can’t point to a period when the “real” apostolic Church fell into error.

As St. Jerome wrote:

We ought to remain in that Church which was founded by the Apostles and continues to this day. If ever you hear of any that are called Christians taking their name not from the Lord Jesus Christ, but from some other, for instance, Marcionites, Valentinians, Men of the mountain or the plain, you may be sure that you have there not the Church of Christ, but the synagogue of Antichrist. For the fact that they took their rise after the foundation of the Church is proof that they are those whose coming the Apostle foretold. And let them not flatter themselves if they think they have Scripture authority for their assertions, since the devil himself quoted Scripture, and the essence of the Scriptures is not the letter, but the meaning. Otherwise, if we follow the letter, we too can concoct a new dogma and assert that such persons as wear shoes and have two coats must not be received into the Church.

As St. Edmund Campion wrote, before his horrific martyrdom by the Church of England:

Ancient History unveils the primitive face of the Church. To this I appeal. Certainly, the more ancient historians, whom our adversaries also habitually, consult, are enumerated pretty well as follows: Eusebius, Damasus, Jerome, Rufinus, Orosius, Socrates, Sozomen, Theodoret Cassiodorus, Gregory of Tours, Usuard, Regino, Marianus, Sigebert, Zonaras, Cedrinus, Nicephorus. What have they to tell? The praises of our religion, its progress, vicissitudes, enemies. Nay, and this is a point I would have you observe diligently, they who in deadly hatred dissent from us,—Melancthon, Pantaleon, Funck, the Centuriators of Magdeburg,—on applying themselves to write either the chronology or the history of the Church, if they did not get together the exploits of our heroes, and heap up the accounts of the frauds and crimes of the enemies of our Church, would pass by fifteen hundred years with no story to tell.

Along with the above-mentioned consider the local historians, who have searched with laborious curiosity into the transactions of some one particular nation. These men, wishing by all means to enrich and adorn the Sparta which they had gotten for their own, and to that effect not passing over in silence even such things as banquets of unusual splendour, or sleeved tunics, or hilts of daggers, or gilt spurs, and other such minutiae having any smack of revelry about them, surely, if they had heard of any change in religion, or any falling off from the standard of early ages, would have related it, many of them; or, if not many, at least several; if not several, some one anyhow. Not one, well-disposed or ill-disposed towards us, has related anything of the sort, or even dropped the slightest hint of the same.

For example. Our adversaries grant us,—they cannot do otherwise,—that the Roman Church was at one time holy, Catholic, Apostolic, at the time when it deserved these eulogiums from St. Paul: Your faith is spoken of in the whole world. Without ceasing I make a commemoration of you. I know that when I come to you, I shall come in the abundance of the blessing of Christ. All the Churches of Christ salute you. Your obedience is published in every place (Rom. i. 8, 9; xv. 29; xvi. 17, 19): at the time when Paul, being kept there in free custody, was spreading the gospel (Acts xxviii. 31) : at the time when Peter once in that city was ruling the Church gathered at Babylon (1 Peter v. 13): at the time when that Clement, so singularly praised by the Apostle (Phil. iv. 3) was governing the Church: at the time when the pagan Caesars, Nero, Domitian, Trajan, Antoninus, were butchering the Roman Pontiffs: also at the time when, as even Calvin bears witness, Damasus, Siricius, Anastasius and Innocent guided the Apostolic bark. For at this epoch he generously allows that men, at Rome particularly, had so far not swerved from Gospel teaching.

When then did Rome lose this faith so highly celebrated? when did she cease to be what she was before? at what time, under what Pontiff, by what way, by what compulsion, by what increments, did a foreign religion come to pervade city and world? What outcries, what disturbances, what lamentations did it provoke? Were all mankind all over the rest of the world lulled to sleep, while Rome, Rome I say, was forging new Sacraments, a new Sacrifice, new religious dogma? Has there been found no historian, neither Greek nor Latin, neither far nor near, to fling out in his chronicles even an obscure hint of so remarkable a proceeding?

 

[Randy_Carson]

We do, but when an ECF has writings that are not in line with Catholic theology, then we have to listen to excuses such as well the ECF’s are not aurthoratative or yes he disagreed but eventually submitted to the church OR he was just plain wrong.

My favourite response is that it was “Just his opinion.”

I was gonna let this go when I read the first post, but since two of you have formed a little bandwagon, I feel the need to speak.

As we all agree, the Early Church Fathers were not infallible. Additionally, they did not always agree with one another on various topics, and occasionally, they changed their minds over time; thus, we find that later passages from a Father contradict or disavow his earlier writings. What are we to make of this when using the Fathers to prove a point?

First, for each individual Father, we must look not just at a single sentence or passage but at the entire corpus of his work to be sure we really understand his thought.

Second, we have to acknowledge that despite those things which may not appear to be in line with Catholic theology as we understand it today, the Fathers were thoroughly Catholic. They recognized the authority of the Church and the See of Peter, and every one of them would have quickly and humbly submitted to the Pope if shown that his doctrine was not in line with that of the universal church. There was not a single Proto-Protestant among them.

Finally, over the course of the centuries, the Church has listened carefully and patiently to all of her sons. And from among their varied opinions and perspectives, she has unfailingly and infallibly chosen the correct path to follow when formulating official doctrines and dogmas.

I believe these three points echo your complaints above, but whereas you deem them to be “excuses” offered by Catholic apologists, they are, in fact, simply rational explanations.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

 

[dronald]

In the Council of Jerusalem in Acts, there was tremendous disagreement over the issue of circumcision. If everyone at that council that was in favor of circumcision, had written their stance down, those would also be writings of ECF. But of course we know how the Church decided that disagreement. And guess what? Those that were in favor, then bent their will to those in Authority. This Is how the Church worked, and continues to work. So in other words, we would read their writings, and say, that is their opinion. The opinion, in the end that counts is the Magisterium’s.

The issue is that there are some who claim that their beliefs have been handed down by Oral Tradition from the Apostles and have come to different conclusions. In fact, Tertullian claimed that his knowledge of Baptism was passed directly down from the Apostles.

I was gonna let this go when I read the first post, but since two of you have formed a little bandwagon, I feel the need to speak.

As we all agree, the Early Church Fathers were not infallible. Additionally, they did not always agree with one another on various topics, and occasionally, they changed their minds over time; thus, we find that later passages from a Father contradict or disavow his earlier writings. What are we to make of this when using the Fathers to prove a point?

First, for each individual Father, we must look not just at a single sentence or passage but at the entire corpus of his work to be sure we really understand his thought.

Second, we have to acknowledge that despite those things which may not appear to be in line with Catholic theology as we understand it today, the Fathers were thoroughly Catholic. They recognized the authority of the Church and the See of Peter, and every one of them would have quickly and humbly submitted to the Pope if shown that his doctrine was not in line with that of the universal church. There was not a single Proto-Protestant among them.

Finally, over the course of the centuries, the Church has listened carefully and patiently to all of her sons. And from among their varied opinions and perspectives, she has unfailingly and infallibly chosen the correct path to follow when formulating official doctrines and dogmas.

I believe these three points echo your complaints above, but whereas you deem them to be “excuses” offered by Catholic apologists, they are, in fact, simply rational explanations.

Hope this helps. :tiphat:

That’s entirely what I have been doing lately. I have managed to read “On Christian Doctrine” as well as part of “City of God.” I’m working on Confessions and my mind was blown by the first book. There are many, many ECF’s and many writings however, so it is pretty tough to get through all of them.

Like I said, I ordered that book that you recommended but you still haven’t responded to me regarding whether or not you would let me know if you liked it or not. J.N.D Kelly is apparently very respected and I can’t wait to read what he has to say.

As for the Catholics responding; does everyone agree with Tertullian? Is he wrong in this respect?

The Chaplet - Chapter 3-

And how long shall we draw the saw to and fro through this line, when we have an ancient practice, which by anticipation has made for us the state, i.e., of the question? If no passage of Scripture has prescribed it, assuredly custom, which without doubt flowed from tradition, has confirmed it. For how can anything come into use, if it has not first been handed down? Even in pleading tradition, written authority, you say, must be demanded. Let us inquire, therefore, whether tradition, unless it be written, should not be admitted. Certainly we shall say that it ought not to be admitted, if no cases of other practices which, without any written instrument, we maintain on the ground of tradition alone, and the countenance thereafter of custom, affords us any precedent. To deal with this matter briefly, I shall begin with baptism. When we are going to enter the water, but a little before, in the presence of the congregation and under the hand of the president, we solemnly profess that we disown the devil, and his pomp, and his angels. Hereupon we are thrice immersed, making a somewhat ampler pledge than the Lord has appointed in the Gospel. Then when we are taken up (as new-born children), we taste first of all a mixture of milk and honey, and from that day we refrain from the daily bath for a whole week. We take also, in congregations before daybreak, and from the hand of none but the presidents, the sacrament of the Eucharist, which the Lord both commanded to be eaten at meal-times, and enjoined to be taken by all alike. As often as the anniversary comes round, we make offerings for the dead as birthday honours. We count fasting or kneeling in worship on the Lord’s day to be unlawful. We rejoice in the same privilege also from Easter to Whitsunday. We feel pained should any wine or bread, even though our own, be cast upon the ground. At every forward step and movement, at every going in and out, when we put on our clothes and shoes, when we bathe, when we sit at table, when we light the lamps, on couch, on seat, in all the ordinary actions of daily life, we trace upon the forehead the sign.

 

[QNDNNDQDCE]

That work is from Tertullian’s Montanist period, though I don’t see anything especially strange about that paragraph. What exactly do you have in mind?

 

[SplendidSt]

As we all agree, the Early Church Fathers were not infallible. Additionally, they did not always agree with one another on various topics, and occasionally, they changed their minds over time; thus, we find that later passages from a Father contradict or disavow his earlier writings.

…we have to acknowledge that despite those things which may not appear to be in line with Catholic theology as we understand it today, the Fathers were thoroughly Catholic. They recognized the authority of the Church and the See of Peter…There was not a single Proto-Protestant among them.
… these points echo your complaints above, but whereas you deem them to be “excuses” offered by Catholic apologists, they are, in fact, simply rational explanations.
:tiphat:

I agree with you 100% (insert e-highfive) and because Sacred Scripture is God-breathed and profitable for correction, teaching and training in righteousness, let’s see what Scripture can tell us.[BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB]

And certain men which came down from Judaea taught the brethren, and said, Except ye be circumcised after the manner of Moses, ye cannot be saved.
When therefore Paul and Barnabas had no small dissension and disputation with them, they determined that Paul and Barnabas, and certain other of them, should go up to Jerusalem unto the apostles and elders about this question.
And being brought on their way by the church, they passed through Phenice and Samaria, declaring the conversion of the Gentiles: and they caused great joy unto all the brethren.
And when they were come to Jerusalem, they were received of the church, and of the apostles and elders, and they declared all things that God had done with them.
But there rose up certain of the sect of the Pharisees which believed, saying, That it was needful to circumcise them, and to command them to keep the law of Moses.
And the apostles and elders came together for to consider of this matter.
And when there had been much disputing, Peter rose up, and said unto them, Men and brethren, ye know how that a good while ago God made choice among us, that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the gospel, and believe.
And God, which knoweth the hearts, bare them witness, giving them the Holy Ghost, even as he did unto us;
And put no difference between us and them, purifying their hearts by faith.
Now therefore why tempt ye God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the disciples, which neither our fathers nor we were able to bear?
But **we **believe that through the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ we shall be saved, even as they.
Then all the multitude kept silence, and gave audience to Barnabas and Paul, declaring what miracles and wonders God had wrought among the Gentiles by them.
Acts 15:1-12

Not only did the Early Church Fathers disagree and hold contradictory opinions about church teaching, but Sacred Scripture tells us even in the time of the Apostles that opinions varied. Protestants would have appealed first to the Bible for such a dissension, but as we all know in this event, that appeal did not happen with the early Christians (and couldn’t have because the Bible wasn’t compiled yet). The fact is the early Christians appealed to the Holy Spirit (out of which the Bible flows as a consequent but equally authoritative fruit). Notice how Paul and Barnabas didn’t do as some Protestants today do, that is, be led by their own personal encounter with the Holy Spirit. They did not follow the Holy Spirit as individuals at home, but they went to the Apostles and elders on this matter all the way to Jerusalem because let’s face it: whoever listens to the Apostles listens to God, whoever rejects the Apostles rejects not men, but God (i.e. Mt 10:40 Lk 10:10). 

We know it is the Church which is inspired by the Holy Spirit, that was demonstrated at Pentecost (Acts 2).  So what happened if not Paul and Barnabas’ own personal Holy Spirit encounter? What happened is that they went to the pillar and foundation of Truth, the Church (1 Tim 3:15). How did this happen, and how was the dispute settled? The elders and Apostles in communion with Peter came together for a council. That’s an indisputable fact. Isn’t it also interesting that Saint Peter, after all the disputing, rose up, and declared with the protection of the Holy Spirit from teaching error that the entire Church believes what he is declaring? As a Protestant I wouldn’t dare claim such a God given authority to say the entire Church is to believe something I’ve declared without error. But Saint Peter did this. Protected by the Holy Spirit from teaching error when he spoke authoritatively. Hmmmm, and notice how that disagreement stopped right there cause everyone shut up after Saint Peter spoke and they then listened to Paul and Barnabas. 

Honestly, only the church Jesus Christ founded could do that. To be honest with ourselves, there’s only one Church that has that authority, The Catholic Church. One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic. So yeah, the church fathers disagreed in their opinions, but the reason we can listen to the church fathers and early church fathers is because they all, every single one was in submission to the Catholic Church (Tertullian would later die outside the Church). Just as there was disagreement before, ultimately it was, and is, the Church, who is the pillar and foundation of the truth and guided by the Holy Spirit, built on the rock of Peter, the Church Christ founded as his Church that has the final say and to which the early church fathers were subject. That’s the truth. That’s who I’m listening to, the Church Christ founded and that’s the only Church anyone should be listening to. I’m not leaving Christ’s Church to follow a faith community that came about 1500 years late to the party. Peace of Christ be with you. [BIBLEDRB][/BIBLEDRB]

 

[Duane1966]

The issue is that there are some who claim that their beliefs have been handed down by Oral Tradition from the Apostles and have come to different conclusions. In fact, Tertullian claimed that his knowledge of Baptism was passed directly down from the Apostles.

That’s entirely what I have been doing lately. I have managed to read “On Christian Doctrine” as well as part of “City of God.” I’m working on Confessions and my mind was blown by the first book. There are many, many ECF’s and many writings however, so it is pretty tough to get through all of them.

Like I said, I ordered that book that you recommended but you still haven’t responded to me regarding whether or not you would let me know if you liked it or not. J.N.D Kelly is apparently very respected and I can’t wait to read what he has to say.

As for the Catholics responding; does everyone agree with Tertullian? Is he wrong in this respect?

The Chaplet - Chapter 3-

And how long shall we draw the saw to and fro through this line, when we have an ancient practice, which by anticipation has made for us the state, i.e., of the question? If no passage of Scripture has prescribed it, assuredly custom, which without doubt flowed from tradition, has confirmed it. For how can anything come into use, if it has not first been handed down? Even in pleading tradition, written authority, you say, must be demanded. Let us inquire, therefore, whether tradition, unless it be written, should not be admitted. Certainly we shall say that it ought not to be admitted, if no cases of other practices which, without any written instrument, we maintain on the ground of tradition alone, and the countenance thereafter of custom, affords us any precedent. To deal with this matter briefly, I shall begin with baptism. When we are going to enter the water, but a little before, in the presence of the congregation and under the hand of the president, we solemnly profess that we disown the devil, and his pomp, and his angels. Hereupon we are thrice immersed, making a somewhat ampler pledge than the Lord has appointed in the Gospel. Then when we are taken up (as new-born children), we taste first of all a mixture of milk and honey, and from that day we refrain from the daily bath for a whole week. We take also, in congregations before daybreak, and from the hand of none but the presidents, the sacrament of the Eucharist, which the Lord both commanded to be eaten at meal-times, and enjoined to be taken by all alike. As often as the anniversary comes round, we make offerings for the dead as birthday honours. We count fasting or kneeling in worship on the Lord’s day to be unlawful. We rejoice in the same privilege also from Easter to Whitsunday. We feel pained should any wine or bread, even though our own, be cast upon the ground. At every forward step and movement, at every going in and out, when we put on our clothes and shoes, when we bathe, when we sit at table, when we light the lamps, on couch, on seat, in all the ordinary actions of daily life, we trace upon the forehead the sign.

Not sure your point. He doesn’t say that is the only way to baptize. In the Church immersion, thrice immersion, or sprinkling of water would all be considered acceptable.

 

[steve_b]

The Bible came from the Apostles and was preserved by believers.

The writers of the NT were in the Church they were writing to and for. That Church is the Catholic Church #34

the Catholic Church wrote, collected, and canonized 27 of her books in 382 a.d., as well as canonized 45 OT books, to number 72 books total. Bottomline, the Catholics Church specifically gave us the NT and canonized the OT books as well, thus the CC gave us the bible. It’s a Catholic Church book. Before 382, there was no bible. For almost 4 centuries, there was no bible.
Tx:

I don’t particularly like the Catholic Bible. I believe my King James.

The King James at best, is scripture lite. It’s missing 7 books, i.e. 9.7% of the books are missing
Tx:

Do you have any of those people from 2,000 years ago that I can talk to? Or do we have to rely on what someone said that someone said that someone said that someone said that someone else said to someone else over dinner while discussing what they heard from someone else who was a student of Peter?

While you’re shooting yourself in both feet you should stop before you do some real damage to yourself
Tx:

If their teachings were important to the fundamental doctrine of the faith, why didn’t they write it down and attach it to the Bible?

There WAS no bible till 382 a.d., after the council of Rome, and decree of pope Damasus.
Tx:

That way, we could know what they taught, instead of relaying on a chain of fallible men to repeat something they heard years ago.

Sounds like you’re describing protestantism. Only you’re relying on heretical men who as Paul said are already self condemned, for doing what they did

Titus 3:10
“As for a man who is factious ( αἱρετικὸν heretic ), after admonishing him once or twice, have nothing more to do with him, 11 knowing that such a person is perverted and sinful; he is self-condemned.”

Romans 16:17-20 , Galatians 5:19-21 , διχοστασίας dichostasia = division / dissension / factions /sedition, that same Greek word is used in both Rom 16:17. And Gal 5:19… and the consequences for one who dies in that sin, they will not inherit heaven. [Gal 5:21]

Did you open the internal links in #34 ? Did you see the point Ignatius was making regarding schism? Ignatius knew Paul. He was also a direct disciple of John.

 

[dronald]

Not sure your point. He doesn’t say that is the only way to baptize. In the Church immersion, thrice immersion, or sprinkling of water would all be considered acceptable.

He claimed to get his information on Baptism from Tradition. My question is whether you agree that he did or not?

 

[Randy_Carson]

He claimed to get his information on Baptism from Tradition. My question is whether you agree that he did or not?

I’ll answer.

Of course. Where else?

 

[SplendidSt]

He claimed to get his information on Baptism from Tradition. My question is whether you agree that he did or not?

Yes, he got it from tradition.

 

[dronald]

I’ll answer.

Of course. Where else?

Yes, he got it from tradition.

Tertullian - On Baptism - Chapter 18

“But they whose office it is, know that baptism is not rashly to be administered. Give to every one who begs you, has a reference of its own, appertaining especially to almsgiving. On the contrary, this precept is rather to be looked at carefully: Give not the holy thing to the dogs, nor cast your pearls before swine; Matthew7:6 and, Lay not hands easily on any; share not other men’s sins. If Philip so easily baptized the chamberlain, let us reflect that a manifest and conspicuous evidence that the Lord deemed him worthy had been interposed. Acts8:26-40 The Spirit had enjoined Philip to proceed to that road: the eunuch himself, too, was not found idle, nor as one who was suddenly seized with an eager desire to be baptized; but, after going up to the temple for prayer’s sake, being intently engaged on the divine Scripture, was thus suitably discovered— to whom God had, unasked, sent an apostle, which one, again, the Spirit bade adjoin himself to the chamberlain’s chariot. The Scripture which he was reading falls in opportunely with his faith: Philip, being requested, is taken to sit beside him; the Lord is pointed out; faith lingers not; water needs no waiting for; the work is completed, and the apostle snatched away. But Paul too was, in fact, ‘speedily’ baptized: for Simon, his host, speedily recognized him to be an appointed vessel of election. God’s approbation sends sure premonitory tokens before it; every petition may both deceive and be deceived. And so, according to the circumstances and disposition, and even age, of each individual, the delay of baptism is preferable; principally, however, in the case of little children. For why is it necessary— if (baptism itself) is not so necessary — that the sponsors likewise should be thrust into danger? Who both themselves, by reason of mortality, may fail to fulfil their promises, and may be disappointed by the development of an evil disposition, in those for whom they stood? The Lord does indeed say, Forbid them not to come unto me. Let them come, then, while they are growing up; let them come while they are learning, while they are learning whither to come; let them become Christians when they have become able to know Christ. Why does the innocent period of life hasten to the remission of sins? More caution will be exercised in worldly matters: so that one who is not trusted with earthly substance is trusted with divine! Let them know how to ask for salvation, that you may seem (at least) to have given to him that asks. For no less cause must the unwedded also be deferred— in whom the ground of temptation is prepared, alike in such as never were wedded by means of their maturity, and in the widowed by means of their freedom— until they either marry, or else be more fully strengthened for continence. If any understand the weighty import of baptism, they will fear its reception more than its delay: sound faith is secure of salvation.”​

Tradition?

 

[Randy_Carson]

Tradition?

TRADITION

Hippolytus (170-236 AD)

“And first baptize the little ones; and if they can speak for themselves, they shall do so; if not, their parents or other relatives shall speak for them.” (The Apostolic Tradition 21:16 [A.D. 215]).

Origen

“Every soul that is born into flesh is soiled by the filth of wickedness and sin. . . . In the Church, baptism is given for the remission of sins, and, according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even to infants. If there were nothing in infants which required the remission of sins and nothing in them pertinent to forgiveness, the grace of baptism would seem superfluous” (Homilies on Leviticus 8:3 [A.D. 248]).

“The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants. The apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of the divine sacraments, knew there are in everyone innate strains of [original] sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit” (Commentaries on Romans 5:9 [A.D. 248]).

Council of Carthage (254 AD)

“We ought not hinder any person from Baptism and the grace of God… especially infants. . . those newly born.”

Cyprian

“Should we wait until the eighth day as did the Jews in circumcision? No, the child should be baptized as soon as it is born.” (To Fidus 1: 2).

“In respect of the case of infants, which you say ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after birth, and that the law of ancient circumcision should be regarded, so that you think that one who is just born should not be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day, we all thought very differently in our council. For in this course which you thought was to be taken, no one agreed; but we all rather judge that the mercy and grace of God is not to be refused to any one born of man… Spiritual circumcision ought not to be hindered by carnal circumcision… we ought to shrink from hindering an infant, who, being lately born, has not sinned, except in that, being born after the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of the ancient death at its earliest birth, who approaches the more easily on this very account to the reception of the forgiveness of sins - that to him are remitted, not his own sins, but the sins of another” (Letter 58 to Fidus).

“As to what pertains to the case of infants: You [Fidus] said that they ought not to be baptized within the second or third day after their birth, that the old law of circumcision must be taken into consideration, and that you did not think that one should be baptized and sanctified within the eighth day after his birth. In our council it seemed to us far otherwise. No one agreed to the course which you thought should be taken. Rather, we all judge that the mercy and grace of God ought to be denied to no man born” (Letters 64:2 [A.D. 253]).

“If, in the case of the worst sinners and those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is granted and no one is held back from baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin, except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old death from his first being born. For this very reason does he [an infant] approach more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another” (ibid., 64:5).

Pope Sircius

“…we desire that infants who, on account of their age, cannot yet speak, or those who, in any necessity, are in want of the water of holy Baptism, be succored with all possible speed, for fear that if those who leave this world should be deprived of the life of the Kingdom for having been refused the source of salvation which they desired, this may lead to the ruin of our souls.” (Letter to Bishop Himerius, [A.D.385]).

**Ambrose **

Unless a man be born again of water and the Holy Spirit, he cannot enter the kingdom of God. No one is excepted, not [even] the infant. (Abraham 1:3:21 [A.D. 387])

Gregory of Nazianzen

“Do you have an infant child? Allow sin no opportunity; rather, let the infant be sanctified from childhood. From his most tender age let him be consecrated by the Spirit. Do you fear the seal [of baptism] because of the weakness of nature? Oh, what a pusillanimous mother and of how little faith!” (Oration on Holy Baptism 40:7 [A.D. 388]).

“‘Well enough,’ some will say, ‘for those who ask for baptism, but what do you have to say about those who are still children, and aware neither of loss nor of grace? Shall we baptize them too?’ Certainly *, if there is any pressing danger. Better that they be sanctified unaware, than that they depart unsealed and uninitiated” (ibid., 40:28).

(cont.)*