Did Tertullian believe baptism was not neccesary?

[Erick_Ybarra]

I just read a section in Tertullian (On Baptism XVIII) that says

"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? "

Is he saying baptism itself is not necessary for salvation? Or does he mean something else

 

[Trishie]

Jesus said it is necessary. (John 3:5)

Tertullian’s personal doubts are surely his opinion, and anyone can have opinions.
His concern seems to be the ‘danger’ to sponsors’ and this is the only clue given that he is doubting the necessity of baptism. What danger to the sponsors? The logical answer would seem to be the fear that they may need to care for the children if their parents were to die?

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

I tried the best I could reading him to make out what he is saying.

All over the place, however, he teaches the necessity of it. Baptism is law and it is essential for salvation. But then this section came into place.

 

[Vouthon]

I just read a section in Tertullian (On Baptism XVIII) that says

"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? "

Is he saying baptism itself is not necessary for salvation? Or does he mean something else

As far as I am aware, there was a common practice in the Early Church of not baptising certain individuals until later life or in some circumstances their death-bed. The Emperor Constantine was in this position and he has been canonized by the Eastern Church. Many early Christians saints are unbaptized catechumens. SAINT EMERENTIANA, ST. RESPICIUS, the brother martyrs SAINTS DONATIEN AND ROGATIEN, ST VICTOR OF BRAGA - all of whom are valid saints - were never baptised with water but died catechumens - baptised therefore by baptism of desire alone.

It fell into disuse. Naturally to decline baptism personally given its importance for salvation would not be wise but to do so as part of a Church-approved scheme as was in place back then would be. More emphasis seems to have been placed on the catechumen phase.

Since the Catholic Church then and now believed in baptism by desire, it was not seen as “bad” or urgent for people to receive water baptism, to the detriment of a healthy, prolonged and studious catechumen phase. To die with the desire for baptism, is to die baptised in God’s eyes.

Again, this wouldn’t be prudent nowadays but the idea that Tertullian is putting across, if understood in this context, doesn’t strike me as particularly eye-brow raising

Hope that helps!

 

[RyanBlack]

Jesus said it is necessary. (John 3:5)

Tertullian’s personal doubts are surely his opinion, and anyone can have opinions.
His concern seems to be the ‘danger’ to sponsors’ and this is the only clue given that he is doubting the necessity of baptism. **What danger to the sponsors? The logical answer would seem to be the fear that they may need to care for the children if their parents were to die?/**QUOTE]

I don’t think that’s the case. In the early Church, at least in some places, it was believed that you were a baptismal sponsor to someone who later apostasized, you too would be damned. Furthermore, Tertullian opposed infant baptism in general, so the possibility of the damnation of the sponsor was another list of reasons he is adding to his reasons for opposing infant baptism.

 

[po18guy]

I seem to recognize this as a snippet of a much larger teaching, given minus its context. On these forums, we have seen various collections of out-of-context Church father quotes put forth in attempts to justify all sorts of heresy. At least, those who post them acknowledge the importance of the Church fathers, even if they do twist their words.

And, here’s the thing: even if one of the Church fathers did veer from revealed truth, it does not change revealed truth!. This is why we have a Pope who acts in union with the council of elders (College of Cardinals).

 

[Mystophilus]

I just read a section in Tertullian (On Baptism XVIII) that says

"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? "

Is he saying baptism itself is not necessary for salvation? Or does he mean something else

See also the rest of his discussion of baptism, especially chapters 12 through16: e.g. ch.13, “Grant that, in days gone by, there was salvation by means of bare faith, before the passion and resurrection of the Lord. …] For the law of baptizing has been imposed, and the formula prescribed: “Go,” He saith, “teach the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.””(emphasis added)

One of the issues in those chapters is that he talks about how baptism is not necessarily urgent, which is not the same as it being irrelevant. I would suggest that, in ch.18, he is talking about the lack of necessity of rushing into baptizing little children.

 

[po18guy]

See also the rest of his discussion of baptism, especially chapters 12 through16: e.g. ch.13, “Grant that, in days gone by, there was salvation by means of bare faith, before the passion and resurrection of the Lord. …] For the law of baptizing has been imposed, and the formula prescribed: “Go,” He saith, “teach the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit.””(emphasis added)

One of the issues in those chapters is that he talks about how baptism is not necessarily urgent, which is not the same as it being irrelevant. I would suggest that, in ch.18, he is talking about the lack of necessity of rushing into baptizing little children.

:tiphat: