Tertullian does not reject infant baptism.....(hmm)

[Erick_Ybarra]

Maybe a vivid picture (hypothetical) would made myself more clear:

If Tertullian was in a worship service where infants were being baptized, he would not conclude “These people are crazy, nothing is happening! The child cannot think for himself and believe in God! It is not a valid baptism” rather he would say “This is a very dangerous practice and the sponsors are carrying a very weighty responsibility”.

Do you see?

And also his view reflects the position that there is no forgiveness of post-baptismal sins ( I think he may have allowed one more chance, but not for serious sins).

 

[fbl9]

Can anyone confirm my line of thought?

First off the fact that Tertullian writes of infant baptism suggests that it was being practiced.
And by reading the excerpt you provided suggests his worry was that these infants would grow up without faith thus exposing them to a harsher judgement then those that weren’t baptised, or by their sins reject the grace they recieved at baptism.
Kinda by baptisng infants the Church was creating a bunch of potential prodigal sons.

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

Right. So he would not have followed the argument of modern day evangelicals who say that an infant baptism is non-effectual for anything.

 

[JustaServant]

Are you sure ? Perhaps you are mixing up Tertullian and Origen or perhaps you are right and I never heard it before.

Montanists
Schismatics of the second century, first known as Phrygians, or “those among the Phrygians” (oi kata Phrygas), then as Montanists, Pepuzians, and (in the West) Cataphrygians. The sect was founded by a prophet, Montanus, and two prophetesses, Maximilla and Prisca, sometimes called Priscilla.

But Tertullian is the most famous of the Montanists. He was born about 150-5, and became a Christian about 190-5. His excessive nature led him to adopt the Montanist teaching as soon as he knew it (about 202-3). His writings from this date onwards grow more and more bitter against the Catholic Church, from which he definitively broke away about 207. He died about 223, or not much later. His first Montanist work was a defense of the new prophecy in six books, “De Ecstasi”, written probably in Greek; he added a seventh book in reply to Apollonius. The work is lost, but a sentence preserved by Prædestinatus (xxvi) is important: “In this alone we differ, in that we do not receive second marriage, and that we do not refuse the prophecy of Montanus concerning the future judgment.” In fact Tertullian holds as an absolute law the recommendations of Montanus to eschew second marriages and flight from persecution. He denies the possibility of forgiveness of sins by the Church; he insists upon the newly ordained fasts and abstinences. Catholics are the Psychici as opposed to the “spiritual” followers of the Paraclete; the Catholic Church consists of gluttons and adulterers, who hate to fast and love to remarry. Tertullian evidently exaggerated those parts of the Montanist teaching which appealed to himself, caring little for the rest. He has no idea of making a pilgrimage to Pepuza, but he speaks of joining in spirit with the celebration of the Montanist feasts in Asia Minor. The Acts of Sts. Perpetua and Felicitas are by some thought to reflect a period a Carthage when the Montanist teaching was arousing interest and sympathy but had not yet formed a schism.

newadvent.org/cathen/10521a.htm

 

[JustaServant]

First off the fact that Tertullian writes of infant baptism suggests that it was being practiced.
And by reading the excerpt you provided suggests his worry was that these infants would grow up without faith thus exposing them to a harsher judgement then those that weren’t baptised, or by their sins reject the grace they recieved at baptism.
Kinda by baptisng infants the Church was creating a bunch of potential prodigal sons.

That’s exactly right.

 

[Randy_Carson]

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?

Erick-

I think you are on to something…the Church practiced infant baptism from the very beginning. If this were not the case, Tertullian would not have had cause to write as he did. The very fact that he is expressing concerns suggests that infant baptism was practiced and because of the efficacious nature of baptism, he believes it should be postponed. He was wrong on the latter, of course, but his argument’s existence proves the case that the early Church did not baptize adults only.

Around the same time, Hippolytus wrote:

Hippolytus (170-236 AD)

“And first baptize the little ones; and if they can speak for themselves, they shall do so; if not, their parents or other relatives shall speak for them.” (*The Apostolic Tradition *21:16 [A.D. 215]).

None of the Fathers or councils of the Church was claiming that the practice was contrary to Scripture or tradition. They agreed that the practice of baptizing infants was the customary and appropriate practice since the days of the early Church; the only uncertainty seemed to be when—exactly—an infant should be baptized. Further evidence that infant baptism was the accepted practice in the early Church is the fact that if infant baptism had been opposed to the religious practices of the first believers, why do we have no record of early Christian writers condemning it?

:tiphat:

 

[Erick_Ybarra]

Erick-

I think you are on to something…the Church practiced infant baptism from the very beginning. If this were not the case, Tertullian would not have had cause to write as he did. The very fact that he is expressing concerns suggests that infant baptism was practiced and because of the efficacious nature of baptism, he believes it should be postponed. He was wrong on the latter, of course, but his argument’s existence proves the case that the early Church did not baptize adults only.

Around the same time, Hippolytus wrote:

Hippolytus (170-236 AD)

“And first baptize the little ones; and if they can speak for themselves, they shall do so; if not, their parents or other relatives shall speak for them.” (*The Apostolic Tradition *21:16 [A.D. 215]).

None of the Fathers or councils of the Church was claiming that the practice was contrary to Scripture or tradition. They agreed that the practice of baptizing infants was the customary and appropriate practice since the days of the early Church; the only uncertainty seemed to be when—exactly—an infant should be baptized. Further evidence that infant baptism was the accepted practice in the early Church is the fact that if infant baptism had been opposed to the religious practices of the first believers, why do we have no record of early Christian writers condemning it?

:tiphat:

Exactly!

All that I was trying to point out was that Tertullian did not fall in line with the modern Evanglical refutations of infant baptism because of it has no effect on an infant who cannot profess faith. Rather he actually admits (implicitly) the effacacious nature of infant baptism, and for this reason considers it a danger.

We know that the Church did not follow his argument for right reasons. I was just trying to separate Tertullian’s view of not baptizing infants with modern day evangelicals’s view of not baptizing infants, for sometimes protestants will use Tertullian to prove their points.

 

[Randy_Carson]

Exactly!

All that I was trying to point out was that Tertullian did not fall in line with the modern Evanglical refutations of infant baptism because of it has no effect on an infant who cannot profess faith. Rather he actually admits (implicitly) the effacacious nature of infant baptism, and for this reason considers it a danger.

We know that the Church did not follow his argument for right reasons. I was just trying to separate Tertullian’s view of not baptizing infants with modern day evangelicals’s view of not baptizing infants, for sometimes protestants will use Tertullian to prove their points.

Sounds like someone is considering becoming Catholic!

 

[JustaServant]

Matters to me and to Pope Benedict XVI (vatican.va/holy_father/benedict_xvi/audiences/2007/documents/hf_ben-xvi_aud_20070530_en.html) …and to the Catechism …etc

Tertullian yes certainly had his difficulties (at the end especially)…but his writings are great value and of interest --even where he went off the tracks

But yes only that which is taken up and taught per se by the Church is per se the Teaching of the Church…

That isn’t to say Tertullian’s writings should be dismissed. He gives a vivid picture of the early Church and the world around him. He was very cynical writer, even in his orthodox writings. And that should be taken into consideration.
When I was still a fundamentalist I studied Tertullian’s writings (probably because he was closer, to what I percieved at that time, as being an ‘early Protestant’). His writings on Baptism confirmed that infant Baptism was practiced from the get go.