 |
| Antonio del Castillo y Saavedra, Baptism of St. Francis of Assisi (1665) |
I’ve said before that the Church Fathers are unanimous in their belief in regenerative baptism: that is, they believe that Baptism actually saves us (as 1 Peter 3:21 explicitly says), by causing us to be born again by water and the Spirit (John 3:5); that it actually washes away our sins (Acts 22:16), and creates in us a clean heart, enabling us to approach God (Hebrews 10:22)… all of which is prophesied by Ezekiel 36:25-27. It’s because of this belief that the Church permits infant baptism: baptism isn’t some good work that we do for God, showing Him how truly Christian we are; it’s a Sacrament, meaning that it’s something that He does for us, cleansing us from our sins.
So while Scripture is totally silent on the direct question of infant baptism (we’re not told whether or not the households baptized in Acts 16:33, 1 Corinthians 1:16, etc., included infants), the Scriptural teaching on regenerative baptism settles the question. If baptism is something God does for us, and if it incorporates us into the Kingdom, and if Christ says to let the little children come unto Him (Matthew 19:14), then it’s clear that we should permit infants to be baptized, and in fact, should encourage it to remove original sin.
Objecting to this post on the subject, one Protestant reader cites to Tertullian and other early Christians:
The first clear reference to infant baptism appears in Tertullian’s On Baptism 18 (ca. 200) and there Tertullian rejects the practice on the grounds that very young children are not yet “competent to know Christ” and are innocent of culpable sin. The article cites Cyprian and the North African bishops but that was some 50 years after the key North African bishop Tertullian rejected it.Despite an occasional significant support from the third century (Origen, Cyprian), infant baptism would not become standard practice until the fifth and sixth centuries. Christian inscriptions from the third and fourth centuries indicate baptism of very young children only in circumstances where death was likely or imminent. So significant a set of fourth-century Christian leaders as Basil the Great and his brother Gregory of Nyssa were not baptized until adulthood despite coming from a family that had been Christian for generations. Eventually high childhood mortality rates, coupled with the view that baptism was objectively efficacious for bringing about salvation, made infant baptism the norm nearly everywhere. In the third to fourth centuries baptism was commonly deferred until after the sins of youth or even until just before death (Constantine is a notable example) in the belief that post-baptismal sins were not covered by baptism. The ascendency of both infant baptism and penitential rites ultimately led to the demise of the delay-baptism movement.
Several things are wrong with this claim. First, Tertullian doesn’t reject the practice of infant baptism. He discourages it, but he doesn’t forbid it (that’s an important distinction, since it shows he viewed as possible). Second, his basis for discouraging it isn’t because the young children don’t know Christ. It’s because he’s concerned that once they’re baptized, they’ll be damned forever if they fall into mortal sin. To understand why he was concerned about this, you need to know something about the controversy giving rise to a heresy called Novatianism.
As the above commenter rightly points out in the second half of his comment, there was an open theological question in the early Church about whether or not post-baptismal mortal sins could be forgiven. This was due in no small part about an interpretative dispute about Hebrews 6:4-6, which says:
For it is impossible to restore again to repentance those who have once been enlightened, who have tasted the heavenly gift, and have become partakers of the Holy Spirit, and have tasted the goodness of the word of God and the powers of the age to come, if they then commit apostasy, since they crucify the Son of God on their own account and hold him up to contempt.
The references to (i) being enlightened, (ii) tasting the heavenly gift, and (iii) becoming partakers of the Holy Spirit are references to Baptism, Communion, and Confirmation respectively. These are the three “Sacraments of initiation,” by which one becomes a fully-incorporated member of the Church, the Body of Christ.
Given this, can Christians who fall into mortal sin ever be saved? Certain Christians said no, based on their reading of Hebrews 6:4-6 and a few other passages. Others said yes, since nothing is impossible to God. This dispute eventually exploded into a heretical movement called the Novatians, who denied penance to mortal sinners, who were opposed (ultimately successfully) by the Catholics. St. Ambrose’s book Concerning Repentance does a good job refuting the Novatian arguments. He points out (Book I, Chapter 8, para. 37) that in trying to affirm the workings of grace in the Sacraments, the Novatians were actually demeaning them, by treating the Sacrament of Penance as powerless. In Book II, Chapter 2, he shows why the Novatian interpretation of Hebrews 6 is wrong.
But while Tertullian was alive, this dispute was still young, and the position that the Novatians would later hold wasn’t obviously heretical. There were still open questions about whether Hebrews 6 permitted reconciliation for a baptized Christian who commit a mortal sin. Moreover, penances during this period were quite severe, sometimes lasting an entire lifetime. Given all this, it’s perhaps unsurprising that even many orthodox Christians put off getting baptized, often until their deathbeds.
 |
| John Phillip, Baptism in Scotland (1850) |
With this necessary background, let’s consider what Tertullian has to say on the subject in the aptly-named On Baptism. Here’s the section that the commenter above referenced:
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! […] If any understand the weighty import of baptism, they will fear its reception more than its delay: sound faith is secure of salvation.
Four things to note:
- Tertullian treats infant baptism as an existing reality. He’s the one encouraging a change to the status quo, by trying to get people to delay their baby’s (and their own) baptism. And indeed, this comports with the rest of the data. In 180 A.D. (about two decades prior to Concerning Baptism) Irenaeus’ Against Heresies describes how “infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men” are “born again.” So infant baptism has been around a lot longer than Tertullian’s admonitions on the subject.
- Tertullian treats infant baptism as acceptable. He simply says that it’s preferable to wait.
- Tertullian’s position isn’t credobaptist. It’s true that he argues that we should wait to baptize kids until they’re old enough to know Christ. But his reasoning is that, before then, they’re either (a) too young to sin (since they’re still in “the innocent period of life”), and/or (b) too young to be prudent in obeying their baptismal duties. That’s why he wants kids to wait until they have more of a faith: not because Baptism is a symbol, but because he thinks of it as such a burden that they’ll need faith to survive without ever falling into mortal sin.
- Tertullian’s position isn’t limited to kids. As a matter of prudence, Tertullian thought that everyone should delay Baptism. Later on in this same section, he advises that the unmarried also shouldn’t be baptized, because they’re more prone to temptation.
Trying to turn Tertullian into a proto-Protestant on the question of Baptism is particularly ironic, given that the very first words of On Baptism are “Happy is our sacrament of water, in that, by washing away the sins of our early blindness, we are set free and admitted into eternal life!”
So to recap: Tertullian doesn’t reject baptismal regeneration or infant baptism. He enthusiastically endorses baptismal regeneration, and while he discourages infant baptism, he recognizes its validity, and his arguments against it are (from either a Catholic or Protestant perspective) wrong
Nicely done on Tertullian.
Irenaeus supports it (” For He came to save all through means of Himself— all, I say, who through Him are born again to God — infants, and children, and boys, and youths, and old men.”) and Cyprian as the objector you quote says, and even Clement of Alexandria “And let our seals be either a dove, or a fish, or a ship scudding before the wind, or a musical lyre, which Polycrates used, or a ship’s anchor, which Seleucus got engraved as a device; and if there be one fishing, he will remember the apostle, and the children drawn out of the water.”.
I think it’s a stretch for him to push the controversy into the six century. In 417, Pope Innocent I in a doctrinal letter to the Fathers of the Synod of Milevis: “To preach that infants can be given the rewards of eternal life without the grace of baptism is completely idiotic. For unless thou eat the flesh of the Son of Man and drink His blood, they will not have life in them.”
Which affirms both paedobaptism and paedocommunion.
In addition to the quote that you cite above from the Gospel of Matthew “Let the children come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of heaven”, we should also consider the words of the Lord to St. Peter in the Gospel of John:
“When therefore they had dined, Jesus saith to Simon Peter: Simon son of John, lovest thou me more than these? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs.[16] He saith to him again: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? He saith to him: Yea, Lord, thou knowest that I love thee. He saith to him: Feed my lambs. [17] He said to him the third time: Simon, son of John, lovest thou me? Peter was grieved, because he had said to him the third time: Lovest thou me? And he said to him: Lord, thou knowest all things: thou knowest that I love thee. He said to him: Feed my sheep”.
Note that the Lord admonishes Peter to “feed my lambs” twice, and “feed my sheep” only once. Is this not an emphasis in favor of greatly caring for “his” lambs/children? And what about the Lords teaching on “scandalizing one of these little ones”? Does this not also show his particular love and care for children “whose angels are always before the face of His Father in Heaven”?
Adding these various teachings on the subject of children together, I can’t see how any person, or church, could reasonably reject infant baptism? Jesus clearly notes that the “lambs” are already ‘his own’. Or, maybe these most beautiful parables, sayings and similitudes given to us by the very mouth of Christ don’t have anything pertinent to teach?
I forgot to add another important example found in the second joyful mystery of the Holy Rosary. That is, that the power of Christ is shown to be significant and effective even before birth. This is witnessed in the account of the unborn John the Baptist who was sanctified in the womb of his mother Elizabeth at the time of Mary’s visitation to her. If such power and holiness can be provided by Christ to a baby not even born, how can anyone argue that infants might not benefit in the same, or even greater way, by a sacramental grace given to them during infant Baptism?
John in the womb is such a powerful example because it so strongly implies an infant’s noetic belief in Christ, which is the deathblow of believer’s baptism objections to paedobaptism.
I enjoyed the article, but I do see some eisegesis going on. For example, Tertullian says “little children.” That does not necessarily include infants, but very young children that cannot understand the faith simply due to age (i.e. they will say whatever their parents tell them.)
This makes me think of something Hippolytus says: “And first baptize the little ones; if they can speak for themselves, they shall do so; if not, their parents or other relatives shall speak for them.” Many jump on this to mean that Hippolytus advocated baptizing children that could not talk, which implicitly means, that they are essentially infants. Sure, this is a possible explanation, but not the only possible one. Being that baptism came with prayer, fasting, and such (and interestingly enough there were no instructions for how to baptize infants, while they were plenty of instructions for baptizing believers), the child is expected to do certain public things if he/she desires to be baptized. Among these things is a public profession of faith, I presume. Now, not all children (especially very little ones) are comfortable speaking in front of large crowds. So, Hippolytus may be saying, let the parents speak for the child in this instance and testify to the fact that the child is going through the rites that precede baptism.
Lastly, anyone who quote Irenaeus on the subject has a real uphill battle, as nothing He says directly relates to the subject. Certainly one can make the case for baptismal regeneration, but not necessarily infant baptism.
Its about faith
Believing upon him who justifies the Ungodly our faith is counted as righteousness.(Romans 4:5)
If we believe with our heart that t God raised his Son Jesus from the dead and confess with our mouth we shall be saved.(Romans 10:9)
Repentance and faith are from God
If we trust in Christ alone for salvation it saves us period.I believe God gives a saving faith to a repentant person.Repentance is a gift from God.
We must look at the bigger picture
Jesus before he ascended commanded all his disciples to baptize in the name of the Father Son Holy Ghost.
Salvation is not by works of our own righteousness but by what Jesus accomplished on the cross on our behalf.The just for the unjust.1 Peter 3:18
The law does not save its only a school teacher to vring us to a saving faith in Jesus Christ
There being justified by faith we have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ and rejoice in this faith by which we now stand Romans 5:1 🙂
Actually, you left out the parts that *do* speak to support from Tertullian of a believer’s baptism.
“learning, while they are learning whither to come; let them become Christians when they have become able to know Christ.“
“Let them know how to ask for salvation, that you may seem (at least) to have given to him that asks.”
Why did you leave those references out?
How does that contradict his point in context, though? He quotes Tertullian acknowledging infant baptism but preferring that one be baptized when they’re older. You quote something that’s along the same form of sentiment.
There is absolutely nothing scriptural about “original sin” as it has been applied to the human family after Adam. It is a term that was created by man and never by any prophet or by Christ Himself. Go back and read, there is nothing scriptural about anyone being born in sin or under the condemnation of Adam’s sins. If you believe in and understand the scriptures then the doctrine of infant baptism is heretical to the doctrines of God. The Fall of Adam was that when he and Eve partook of the fruit they were cast out of the Garden of Eden and the presence of God. They had become as God knowing good and evil, as evidenced by Adam’s confession that he was afraid to be in the presence of God because he was naked, and, God posing the question, “Who told thee that thou was naked?” Never, never did God say that because of your “original sin” all of your posterity will be stained or under condemnation, and any babe henceforth born will need to be baptized to remove it. And if that is not enough, when our Lord came to minister to on earth prior to His great sacrifice for us He never taught that children were under any condemnation or stain. Quite the contrary, He likened the Kingdom of God unto the children. Baptism is unto repentance and is an outward ordinance of an inner commitment, signifying to God the willingness to keep His commandments and with that one is allow entrance into His kingdom.
Consider these words of a prophet:
8 Listen to the words of Christ, your Redeemer, your Lord and your God. Behold, I came into the world not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance; the whole need no physician, but they that are sick; wherefore, little children are whole, for they are not capable of committing sin; wherefore the curse of Adam is taken from them in me, that it hath no power over them; and the law of circumcision is done away in me.
9 And after this manner did the Holy Ghost manifest the word of God unto me; wherefore, my beloved son, I know that it is solemn mockery before God, that ye should baptize little children.
10 Behold I say unto you that this thing shall ye teach–repentance and baptism unto those who are accountable and capable of committing sin; yea, teach parents that they must repent and be baptized, and humble themselves as their little children, and they shall all be saved with their little children.
11 And their little children need no repentance, neither baptism. Behold, baptism is unto repentance to the fulfilling the commandments unto the remission of sins.
12 But little children are alive in Christ, even from the foundation of the world; if not so, God is a partial God, and also a changeable God, and a respecter to persons; for how many little children have died without baptism!
13 Wherefore, if little children could not be saved without baptism, these must have gone to an endless hell.
14 Behold I say unto you, that he that supposeth that little children need baptism is in the gall of bitterness and in the bonds of iniquity; for he hath neither faith, hope, nor charity; wherefore, should he be cut off while in the thought, he must go down to hell.
15 For awful is the wickedness to suppose that God saveth one child because of baptism, and the other must perish because he hath no baptism.
16 Wo be unto them that shall pervert the ways of the Lord after this manner, for they shall perish except they repent. Behold, I speak with boldness, having authority from God; and I fear not what man can do; for perfect love casteth out all fear.
17 And I am filled with charity, which is everlasting love; wherefore, all children are alike unto me; wherefore, I love little children with a perfect love; and they are all alike and partakers of salvation.
18 For I know that God is not a partial God, neither a changeable being; but he is unchangeable from all eternity to all eternity.
19 Little children cannot repent; wherefore, it is awful wickedness to deny the pure mercies of God unto them, for they are all alive in him because of his mercy.
20 And he that saith that little children need baptism denieth the mercies of Christ, and setteth at naught the atonement of him and the power of his redemption.
21 Wo unto such, for they are in danger of death, hell, and an endless torment. I speak it boldly; God hath commanded me. Listen unto them and give heed, or they stand against you at the judgment-seat of Christ.
22 For behold that all little children are alive in Christ, and also all they that are without the law. For the power of redemption cometh on all them that have no law; wherefore, he that is not condemned, or he that is under no condemnation, cannot repent; and unto such baptism availeth nothing–
23 But it is mockery before God, denying the mercies of Christ, and the power of his Holy Spirit, and putting trust in dead works.
24 Behold, my son, this thing ought not to be; for repentance is unto them that are under condemnation and under the curse of a broken law.
25 And the first fruits of repentance is baptism; and baptism cometh by faith unto the fulfilling the commandments; and the fulfilling the commandments bringeth remission of sins;
26 And the remission of sins bringeth meekness, and lowliness of heart; and because of meekness and lowliness of heart cometh the visitation of the Holy Ghost, which Comforter filleth with hope and perfect love, which love endureth by diligence unto prayer, until the end shall come, when all the saints shall dwell with God.
Infant baptism did not even come about until more than two centuries had passed after our Lord’s birth. Why? Because it is the work of men not of God. God never taught it. I challenge anyone with a sincere heart and real intent for the truth to go to God in prayer and asking in the name of Christ if what I have presented to you is true. God bless you.
Mark 16:16 “He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.” – It clearly states the order to be done: first, you have to believe in Jesus Christ; Second, you get baptized. Little children do not have cognitive function yet to do it.
Thank you for a sucinct presentation. I am a former Catholic – now a Biblical Protestant. I worship at a Mennonite Fellowship. After being asked by an elder to furnish him with an exegesis on baptism, I pulled all my books on the subject and dove in. To my surprise, I came to understand that the Apostolic Church may have indeed baptized whole house holds – including children and probably infants. This was enforced by examining the Jewish traditions at the time of Christ. Your explanation on Tertulian was significantly helpful.
“This was enforced by examining the Jewish traditions at the time of Christ.”
I know I’m 5 years too late, but can you speak more about this part?
Very enlightening
Citing Irenaeus as supporting Infant Baptism presumes the later assumption that “Born Again” refers to Baptism, Biblically it doesn’t it’s the Bodily Resurrection of the Dead, so we have no way of knowing what Irenaeus meant here.