Skip to content
The Historic Faith
Sign in

Jumpstarter 9 of 10

Ideas to help restart your discussion
Question 9
Hippolytus’ policy in *Apostolic Tradition* allows some soldiers to remain if they refuse to kill and refuse oaths, yet rejects anyone who seeks to become a soldier; what assumptions about baptism, repentance, and allegiance to Christ are built into that policy, and how does it compare with how churches receive believers whose jobs require coercion or violence?
Another way to ask: Why would Hippolytus allow a soldier to stay only if he refuses to kill and refuses oaths, but not allow someone to become a soldier? What does that say about what baptism and loyalty to Christ should mean, and how does that compare to how churches treat believers in jobs that use force?

Direct Answer The policy assumes baptism requires a clear break with practices incompatible with Christ—especially killing and oath-bound allegiance—and that choosing a violent vocation is a rejection of God. It also assumes the church can set concrete conditions for baptism tied to one’s occupation.

Support from Transcript:

  • Hippolytus’ compiled guidance: a soldier “must be taught not to kill men…refuse to do so if commanded…refuse to take an oath. If he is unwilling…he must be rejected for baptism.”
  • For higher authority: “A military commander…must resign or be rejected,” because commanding implies responsibility for killing.
  • For someone wanting to enlist: “If an applicant or a believer seeks to become a soldier, they must be rejected for they have despised God.”
  • Bercot compares this to other occupations needing repentance: sorcerers must “totally get rid” of sorcery; actors must “give up the theater before they can be baptized.”
  • He notes constraints of Roman service: often the only way out was “death,” so the policy grapples with real-world pressure.
Discussion Follow-ups What does it say about early Christian discipleship that the church felt responsible to evaluate jobs before baptism?