as an aside, i do have to laugh when in one post you make the case that the Reformer’s were holding to the tenants of the Nicene Creed and the Holy Tradition and then you post an article that says apostasy crept into the Church in the early third century and by the middle of the third century, no one basically understood salvation and baptism.
the irony truly would be funny if it wasn’t so sad.
I do hope you understand that stating certain false doctrines crept into the early church does not mean that the entire church was corrupt. There is nothing in the Nicene Creed with which I disagree outright and the ONLY objections I have are with those who READ INTO the words of the creed things that may not have been meant when it was written. Case in point is the term "one, holy, catholic and apostolic church". Roman Catholics get all giddy when they imagine everyone quoting this creed is talking about "their" Catholic Church, when it was NOT at all what the term meant. The word "catholic" meant the universal body of Christ and not, contrary to Papists' ideas, ONLY the Roman Catholic Church. So, while I can say I DO believe in a universal, holy and apostolic (meaning based on the teachings of the apostles with Scripture) called-out assembly (what the word church actually means), I am not acknowledging the Roman Catholic Church as that church.
The same goes for "one baptism for the remission of sins". I believe in the baptism of the Holy Spirit that happens when saving faith in Jesus Christ is exercised and which is outwardly testified to by the act of water baptism. If you go back and review all those ECFS you quote from, and look at what some also said about justification by faith apart from works, you could put them together and realize that they would NOT have argued as you do for the sacrament of water baptism being NEEDED in order to be saved. I noticed you skipped past the point I made about the EXCEPTIONS cited in Scripture for those who were saved but had NOT been water baptized.
Another observation is with some of those ECFS speaking of the act of water baptism and the person preparing themselves for the ordinance by prayer, fasting and counseling - it ruled out babies being baptized, but which is either ignored or that particular piece of the ECF writings was skipped. It is a "piecemeal" picking and choosing what will or will not be considered whenever a dogma is being formulated. Ironically, some of those very same fathers being quoted were later tossed out for being "heretics". I can read what early believers wrote and can look at the times they lived in, what the conditions were, and their views can help me in some ways, but they will never take the place of God's Word. What Holy Scripture says is clear and plain to understand to those who have the Spirit of God as their teacher. I do not need ECFS to tell me what God's word says - I can read it for myself and understand through the Spirit's illumination to my heart. I know that I am saved by the unmerited and undeserved grace of God through faith in Jesus Christ and I know that I have eternal life because of HIM. I didn't need Tertullian or Augustine to confirm it for me.
The real irony is when people take the traditions of men over what the Bible clearly says and they believe that it is their own goodness and righteousness that saves them. That they will have all eternity to regret their false choice is the greatest sadness of all.