On Baptism – On Baptism: The Adversaries

De Baptismo
 - The Adversaries - Part I
 - The Adversaries - Part II
 - The Apostolic Apostolic Fathers

The title of this post is taken from one of Tertullian’s works ‘On Baptism’ and while the context would seem to indicate that he is an adversary, it is quite contrary to the debate in question. The necessity of engaging Tertullian is because he is the greatest voice for delaying baptism of infants. The problem is that while many Baptists will attempt to herald Tertullian as one of their own,  they never take into account the whole of his theology which was rooted in an apostolic, catholic and scriptural understanding of baptism, albeit slightly jaded regarding where baptism is applied. Another troubling issue in appealing to Tertullian is that in his later years he became a Montanist, and some Baptists will refer to these as the ‘true’ Christians who stood against the devilry of the Roman Catholic Church. I will not be addressing the claims made by any of these people, or addressing the issue of Tertullian and Montanism, but rather will briefly consider some statements he made concerning baptism both its efficacy and its usage.

Tertullian was born in or around Carthage around 145 or 155 A.D. to pagan parents. Some scholars of the early 20th century scholars suggested that Tertullian was a lawyer (A. Harnack, a liberal Lutheran theologian). The suggestion that Tertullian was a lawyer is not completely far-fetched. His writings have the rhetoric and consistency of one who has had formal training. Nevertheless, he converted to Christianity around 185 A.D. He served in Carthage in the last part of the 2nd century, but there is no evidence that I am aware of that suggests he was ever a bishop. He is also the first theologian credited with the use of the word trinitas or Trinity.

Concerning Baptism

What exactly does Tertullian suggest concerning baptism? It may be helpful to look at the first paragraph of his work On Baptism:

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! ... But we, little fishes, after the example of our ΙΧΘΥΣ Jesus Christ, are born in water, nor have we safety in any other way than by permanently abiding in water; so that most monstrous creature, who had no right to teach even sound doctrine, knew full well how to kill the little fishes, by taking them away from the water!(Tertullian, De Baptismo, ch.1)

He clearly expresses that we “are born in water” and that we have our safety “by abiding in water.” It reminds me of what Martin Luther said “Remember your baptism.” It is not that we were baptized in a past sense, but we ‘are’ presently baptized.  As the chapters proceed Tertullian reminds the reader by using various types, shadows and examples found in the Scriptures which point to the waters of baptism. The first opposition that Tertullian addresses are those who would blasphemously refuse baptism altogether, and would instead rather trust in their own faith. As Lutherans we look to our baptism as extra nos (outside ourselves) rather than an inward searching for a pure faith, or an inward searching for pure works. Tertullian responds as follows:

And so they say, Baptism is not necessary for them to whom faith is sufficient; for withal, Abraham pleased God by a sacrament of no water, but of faith. But in all cases it is the later things which have a conclusive force, and the subsequent which prevail over the antecedent. Grant that, in days gone by, there was salvation by means of bare faith, before the passion and resurrection of the Lord. But now that faith has been enlarged, and has become a faith which believes in His nativity, passion, and resurrection, there has been an amplification added to the sacrament, viz., the sealing act of baptism; the clothing, in some sense, of the faith which before was bare, and which cannot exist now without its proper law. For the law of baptizing has been imposed, and the formula prescribed: Go, He says, teach the nations, baptizing them into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit. The comparison with this law of that definition, Unless a man have been reborn of water and Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of the heavens, has tied faith to the necessity of baptism.” (Tertullian, De Baptismo, ch.13)

Tertullian makes it clear that before Christ, there was a salvation “of bare faith,” but this was “before the passion and resurrection of the Lord.” Now our faith trusts in a God found in the nativity, passion, and resurrection. As such what has been added to faith is “the sealing act of baptism; the closing, in some sense, of the faith which was before bare.” After reminding the reader of the baptismal formula and institution by Christ he writes“Unless a man have been reborn of water and Spirit, he shall not enter into the kingdom of the heavens, has tied faith to the necessity of baptism.”

For Tertullian the issue of baptism is of necessity and efficacy for the believer and the faithful. He does not render faith void, but rather shows that in baptism the bare faith is clothed in the death and resurrection of Christ. In another work, he says, “Whence it follows that they who have by faith attained to the resurrection, are with the Lord after they have once put Him on in their baptism.” (Tertullian, De Anima, ch.19) A few chapters later he proceeds to say: “that we were once dead, alienated, and enemies to the Lord in our minds, while we were living in wicked works; that we were then buried with Christ in baptism, and also raised again with Him through the faith of the operation of God, who has raised Him from the dead.” (Tertullian, De Anima, ch.23) Tertullian like the other Church Fathers advocated that baptism is a method of receiving God’s grace and salvation. This is very essential for understanding Tertullian’s view of the usage of baptism.

Concerning Infants

Now the daunting question is what did Tertullian say concerning children?

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. (Tertullian, De Baptismo, ch.18)

A naïve and uncritical reading of this text may simply dismiss infant baptism, but anyone who seriously considers the words of Tertullian will recognize several things. First, Tertullian is addressing an issue of infant baptism because it is already present and well established in North Africa. Second, he is addressing arguments which in turn take the words of Christ as a defense. Lastly, his argument is stemmed from an issue of fear and pragmatism. 

Tertullian's pragmatism was out of fear the baptized would fall from grace. Tertullian says “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!” For many of the early church fathers there was a fear that serious sin after baptism would lead to the condemnation of the Christian, and Tertullian was addressing a serious concern of piety and salvation. He wanted to forgo the baptism of infants until they were so grounded that they would not fall from the faith.

Tertullian nowhere defends his position from the Scripture or tradition, but he instead responds to a well-grounded practice in Carthage. Before Tertullian responds to the argument (above) about the Lord not forbidding he says the following:

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? (Tertullian, De Baptismo, ch.18)

I repeat, Tertullian does not appeal to the rule of faith, traditions of the apostles, or Holy Scripture, but instead, appeals to his own opinion that “the delay of baptism is preferable.” Why? If the parents were unfit or unavailable to raise the children it is advisable to forgo baptism.  He does say “For why is it necessary— if (baptism itself) is not so necessary…” If the reader takes into account not only the rest of this work, Tertullian’s theology, and the understanding of other Christians of the day, it seems apparent that he is suggesting that if the baptism is not necessary (namely the child is not in peril of infant death), then it is preferable to wait.

Tertullian even goes further and suggests that not only infants, but the unmarried should hold off baptism because of their lusts. He says

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. (Tertullian, De Baptismo, ch.18)

Is this really the Tertullian that Baptists want to claim as their own? Tertullian says that baptism is necessary for salvation, he says that it is only preferable to delay baptism if it isn’t necessary (emergency baptism), he recognizes that infant baptism was present in at least North Africa, and even goes on to suggest that unmarried individuals should not be baptized. After being raised a Baptist, I can honestly say this does not sound like any of the pastors that I had listened to or read. In fact, Tertullian is not the voice of an adversary, but the voice of a pragmatist and he only helps to secure the position that the Fathers most certainly taught infant baptism.

It should be apparent that the reason I chose Tertullian first was to show how the alleged opponent of infant baptism and victor for some Baptists, is really only a misguided pragmatist who helps to support the issue of infant baptism. We will be returning to Carthage in the next post when we consider how things changed when Tertullian's disciple Cyprian was bishop of Carthage.

Note: All citations were taken from the translations available at www.newadvent.com.