Tertullian said:
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.
.
This doesn't sound like an attack. This calling it an attack is an obscuring of what is admonished. Some have taken his words and used them out of context I believe. They make it sound like he is against paedobaptism. It sounds like he has reservations and desire for holding off on immediate baptism but I don't think he is against it. He really isn't saying not to administer Baptism right away but that we should make sure we know what it entails and what the ramifications are. It seems like it is more of admonition than an attack on paedobaptism. His last line seems to reveal his motive for what he is thinking.
To even recommend against what, on pb premises, was the then normal understanding of pb is, by definition, to be against the practice as it was then carried out
Maybe I am reading this incorrectly but I don't see where he is totally against it. It seemed necessary to baptize those on their death bed because of the implication that sin was forgiven and washed away. That was common thinking back then if I am not mistaken. Tertullian is just pleading for cautious understanding.
Whether you use the word attack or admonishment, the substance is the same, T. is recommending against infant baptism based on an unscriptural misunderstanding of Baptism that seems to have been common in his day.
He is at the very least recommending against it giving reasons he believes support his stand. Such an approach is often described as an attack.
When one is begging the question. He is also, therefore,
attacking adult baptism for the unmarried. Do you see this, also, as a buttress to your point or are you being selective?
His attack on other cases are based on and logical consequences of the same theological misunderstanding of baptism that his critique of ib evidences.
Yes I do know, but his attack on p comes from the time before Tertullian joined the Montanists. And T’s later career says nothing about the validity of his objections to pb in the same way that Clark Pinnock’s later career does not nullify the case he made for scriptural inspiration while orthodox (i.e. 1971’s Biblical Revelation).
And because he supports your theory you are able to figure out which parts of his theology are stable ("attacks" on PB) and which are unstable (let's just ignore that baptismal regeneration stuff and silliness about telling the unmarried to wait to get baptized....)
No, what I said was that Christians TEND not to attack things KNOWN to be APOSTOLIC. (I should have used the word “practices” rather than things). IF the practice of IB was certainly known to be Apostolic by Tertullian, he would have been less likely to attack in this period. And note that even in his Montanist period he was holding, to a considerable extent, doctrines and practices that although apostolic, but that had since ceased (assuming the cessationist view of matters is correct). What T does is reason from an unbiblical theology of baptism which we must assume was then current.
No, my point is not that people did not then have institutional memory, my point is that, given the relative paucity of their teaching that has survived, we cannot know exactly what the institutional memory of the early church was on this question either way.
Consequently, any theories would be question begging, yes?
Oh, apparently not...
When the tradition is known to be errant, statements presuming certainties (either way) will be question begging. On the other hand, statements showing what the possibilities are may not be so considered.
What we have is enough to cast suspicion on any sub apostolic teaching not clearly supported by scripture.
No, you have taken a few sentences without any other surrounding historical context, imported your theory on it and created an explanation for it al. This is not historical argument, it is question begging. As I stated before, the silence needs no explanation. When there is no contrary example, my Biblical conviction does not need to go searching for theories for its instant disappearance from the face of Christianity a little over a century after the death of the Apostles.
The facts are these: ib is not mentioned clearly in the tradition until 200; when it is first mentioned it is mentioned in conjunction with an errant theology of baptism which proves that whatever the apostolic tradition on subject of baptism was, it was somehow corrupted between 70 and about 185. The good and necessary consequence of this reality is that is begging the question to assume that the rest of the baptism tradition (including the practice of ib) is accurate when we cannot test its accuracy. It may be accurate or it may not be and we simply don’t know which is correct. Presuming we can trust a tradition known to be errant in part, on the points where we cannot test it is to abandon the reformed doctrine of sola, not solo, scriptura in favour of a reformed traditionalism.
You are confusing two types of information transfer. What did not reach Rome quickly was the details of the charge against Paul. It is not difficult to see at least one reason why this could have happened: the Jewish leaders wouldn’t risk fanning the controversy by letting people outside Judea know the details.
But what we are considering is the speed with which a new Christian teaching might pass throughout the churches. In this case the senders would have been motivated to help their brethren and so things may have moved faster.
My point is merely that information did not travel quickly and, try as you might to assume that the Church would be motivated to spread the news of a new heresy quickly, your theory is fantastic.
Information was known to travel quickly some of the time and slowly some of the time. You can’t pick an alternative because it is favourable to your case, you must look at the range of possibilities and allow for what is likely. If the errant doctrine of baptism T relies on was not initially perceived to be heretical, and it wasn’t because it was accepted as the norm in T's day, the question then becomes how fast would it likely have spread through the churches? We know the maximum speed of the Roman mails, let’s double that for private travellers, and allow another year’s delay from church to church (travelling teachers were known to circulate). While we could take 115 - the date of the first known corruption of apostolic teaching in the literature - as our start date, let’s be conservative and assume (hypothetically) that it started in, say Corinth, about 135. It would be in Rome and Philippi by 137, Ephesus by 139, Antioch by 140 and Jerusalem by 142. Since ib is a logical consequence of that doctrine, it would not be easily perceived as heretical. Assume that ib was first formulated in 145, it would have been known throughout the churches by 152 at the latest – a generation before 185.
And how do you know that nobody made an objection? Tons of people may have objected but their objections may not have survived. We know that there was at least some objection to the practice and some critical details in administration were nailed down suspiciously late. This suggests that ib MIGHT have been an innovation. Certainly false teachings are not always met immediately with widespread decrying: the tradition records nobody other than Tertullian making an objection to the false theology behind IB that definitely infiltrated the church.
Please do keep making these sorts of objections. They simply support the case of historical silence in need of a theory to explain. Can you please be more specific about the false theology behind IB that Tertullian was objecting to?
The errant theology of baptism T is relying on includes the ideas that a) that wb was essential for salvation: "Now God has ordered every one who worships Him to be sealed by baptism; but if you refuse, and obey your own will rather than God's, you are doubtless contrary and hostile to His will. But you will perhaps say, 'What does the baptism of water contribute towards the worship of God?' In the first place, because that which hath pleased God is fulfilled. In the second place, because, when you are regenerated and born again of water and of God, the frailty of your former birth, which you have through men, is cut off, and so at length you shall be able to attain salvation; but otherwise it is impossible. For thus hath the true prophet testified to us with an oath: 'Verily I say to you, That unless a man is born again of water, he shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.' Therefore make haste; for there is in these waters a certain power of mercy which was borne upon them at the beginning, and acknowledges those who are baptized under the name of the threefold sacrament, and rescues them from future punishments, presenting as a gift to God the souls that are consecrated by baptism. Betake yourselves therefore to these waters, for they alone can quench the violence of the future fire; and he who delays to approach to them, it is evident that the idol of unbelief remains in him, and by it he is prevented from hastening to the waters which confer salvation." (Clement, "Recognitions of Clement," Ante-Nicene Fathers, vol. 8, pg. 155) and b) that there are serious adverse consequences for the one who commits sins after baptism, so serious that baptism is best postponed. We see a hint of this in: “But the world returned unto
sin; in which point
baptism would ill be compared to the deluge. And so it is destined to fire; just as the man too is, who after
baptism renews his
sins.” (Tertullian, On Baptism, ch 8). This tradition known seems to have origninated in the following text which suggests that sinning after baptism could not be atoned for: "there is no other way [to obtain God's promises] than this-to become acquainted with Christ, to be washed in the fountain spoken of by Isaiah for the remission of sins, and for the remainder, to live sinless lives." (Justin Martyr, Trypho chap. 44) "For, if we do the will of Christ, we shall find rest; but if otherwise, then nothing shall deliver us from eternal punishment, if we should disobey His commandments. . . . [W]ith what confidence shall we, if we keep not our baptism pure and undefiled, enter into the kingdom of God? Or who shall be our advocate, unless we be found having holy and righteous works?' (Second Clement 6:7)
Does Tertullian's correction of false theology convince you and your Church that you should not be baptizing the unmarried?
No, for the same reasons you and your church would find that premise Scripturally unsound. My only reasons in citing this unbiblical theology of baptism is to point out that scripturally it is a corruption of Apostolic doctrine and that it entered the tradition undetected in the years 70 - 200.
Sure and it’s a good thing we do. Not only is Clement pointing out some bad church practices relative to an issue, Church unity, that too many underrate..
But you had stated earlier that most people would simply "lay down" on the baptism issue as if it was immaterial. I did not state that Clement's letter was unnecessary or the issues unimportant. I really don't know if you are being deceptive or you are really unable to accurately read even a simple interaction with me but it was very clear what I meant. It seems to me that your education should allow you to follow my simple point and I would urge you to take greater care when responding.
The history of heresy shows plainly enough that some issues are immediately recognized as controversial and some are not, and in other case the full extent of the problem comes to light after many years. Please reread my posts. I am trying to say that there is good reason to show that the early church experienced a defective theology of baptism (quotations above) that held not only that wb was essential to salvation but that no sacrifice for sins was available for sins committed post baptism. Once this error was adopted, there is no good reason to object to ib except for those reasons T put forward. And, given the history of heresy, we cannot say that the doctrinal misunderstanding would immediately have been recognized as erroneous by some. That simply is not the case.
A lot of the sharpness and party spirit around this question has to do with the abuses historically heaped by both sides upon each other from the time of the Anabaptists to the present. This environment may not have been present in the second century. If a false teaching on the nature of baptism had infiltrated the early church and won acceptance (and it demonstrably did in the case of the erroneous theory of baptism which Tertullian anchors his critique of ib upon), then ib could easily have spread, as a corollary without raising the kind of ire we often see today.
Tim, I'll let you have the last word but let me close by noting that you have a single historical witness who is not only unstable as demosntrated by his departure from orthodoxy but unstable as demonstrated by several other things he affirms and denies in his urging the delay of baptism for infants, children, and pubescent teens. Even if we assume he hadn't gone off the deep end yet, you keep coming back to him because you have no place else to go. If you wish to continue to buttress your historical argument with this lone unstable witness then I'm happy to have you do so as it continues to make my initial point. Let the reader move his nose away an inch from the issue and he'd realize that your historical case has no substance and is an example of the kind of historical scholarship we would all scoff at if it was in the service of a liberal.
And my last word is you are demonstrably relying on the early baptismal tradition as if it were inerrant when it demonstrably not.
