E
Erick_Ybarra
Guest
Sorry about the title of the post, but I am wondering if Tertullian rejected what modern day Catholics believe about infant baptism. In other words, I think that Tertullian believes that what happens to baptized infants is equated with what the later developed Catholic doctrine taught which is the grant of remission of original sin. I believe that Tertullian believed this would happen if an infant were to be baptized, and this plays a part in why he did not wish infants to be baptized.
For example, he speaks of baptism as something to be delayed because of the dangers that could become of the child growing up and returning to the works of the flesh, wallowing in the Adamic passions of being indisposed to glorifying God. That such as possibility is a danger, for they may never be able to return to good favor with God.
Consider the quote by Tertullian on children baptism (Baptism Chapter XVII):
*“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 this is referring to the alternative of baptism by blood] – that the sponsors likewise should be thrust into danger? Who both themselves, by reason of mortality, may fail to fulfill 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 wither 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 substances is trusted with divine! Let them know how to ‘ask’ for salvation, that you may seem (at least) to have given ‘to him that asketh’. 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 he 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.” *
Some protestants today use Tertullian to expose that infant baptism is unbiblical and was not practiced by the disciples of the 1st century. However, it does not seem that Tertullian denies that the children who are baptized will actually be forgiven, rather he warns of the danger in doing so… am I thinking right? And so because of this, other early Christians’ view that infant baptism washes away original sin is actually supported by Tertullian’s reasoning in forbidding it, does that make sense?
For example, he speaks of baptism as something to be delayed because of the dangers that could become of the child growing up and returning to the works of the flesh, wallowing in the Adamic passions of being indisposed to glorifying God. That such as possibility is a danger, for they may never be able to return to good favor with God.
Consider the quote by Tertullian on children baptism (Baptism Chapter XVII):
*“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 this is referring to the alternative of baptism by blood] – that the sponsors likewise should be thrust into danger? Who both themselves, by reason of mortality, may fail to fulfill 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 wither 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 substances is trusted with divine! Let them know how to ‘ask’ for salvation, that you may seem (at least) to have given ‘to him that asketh’. 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 he 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.” *
Some protestants today use Tertullian to expose that infant baptism is unbiblical and was not practiced by the disciples of the 1st century. However, it does not seem that Tertullian denies that the children who are baptized will actually be forgiven, rather he warns of the danger in doing so… am I thinking right? And so because of this, other early Christians’ view that infant baptism washes away original sin is actually supported by Tertullian’s reasoning in forbidding it, does that make sense?
