Why was Tertullian a Credo-baptist?

[Wittenberger]

A Baptist pastor sent me the following link as proof that most early Christians did not believe in infant baptism.

Maybe its just me, but the text seems to give support for just the opposite.

It seems that Tertullian not only encouraged infants to hold off on baptism, but he also advised non-married persons and widows to delay baptism. Why? It certainly wasn't because he believed that baptism was just an act of obedience/public profession of faith!

What was his reasoning? Click on the link below, read and decide for yourself.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0321.htm

 

[Bro. James]

A Baptist pastor sent me the following link as proof that most early Christians did not believe in infant baptism.

Maybe its just me, but the text seems to give support for just the opposite.

It seems that Tertullian not only encouraged infants to hold off on baptism, but he also advised non-married persons and widows to delay baptism. Why? It certainly wasn't because he believed that baptism was just an act of obedience/public profession of faith!

What was his reasoning? Click on the link below, read and decide for yourself.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0321.htm

Beware the bias of the newadvent aka catholic encyclopedia and other wolves dressed like sheep. Much of the information provided has a holy see dogma bias. All information extraneous to Holy Writ is biased by the depravity of man, including Tertullian. A lot of his writing contradicts the holy see dogma.

One does not find infant baptism/baptismal regeneration in "the whole counsel of God." Unnecessary inference is the best the pedo-baptism folks can supply. The Bible is quite plain: see Ephesians 2:8-10. Use a Douay if you like. This has been the basic schism since the first century, the root of which is found in the sacrifice offered by Cain.

No one is authorized to change the Word of God.

Peace,

Bro. James

P.S. Tertullian has some interesting observations about the NFL : see Tertullian: De Spectaculus

 

[Wittenberger]

Beware the bias of the newadvent aka catholic encyclopedia and other wolves dressed like sheep. Much of the information provided has a holy see dogma bias. All information extraneous to Holy Writ is biased by the depravity of man, including Tertullian. A lot of his writing contradicts the holy see dogma.

One does not find infant baptism/baptismal regeneration in "the whole counsel of God." Unnecessary inference is the best the pedo-baptism folks can supply. The Bible is quite plain: see Ephesians 2:8-10. Use a Douay if you like. This has been the basic schism since the first century, the root of which is found in the sacrifice offered by Cain.

No one is authorized to change the Word of God.

Peace,

Bro. James

P.S. Tertullian has some interesting observations about the NFL : see Tertullian: De Spectaculus

Thank you Brother James for your comments.

The early "Church" condemned Tertullian. They condemned him for being a Montanist: the belief that all sins committed after baptism are unforgiveable.

Tertullian urged non-married persons, widows, and infants to wait as long as possible before being baptized because BAPTISM, in his opinion, WASHES AWAY SINS.

Why would the "catholic" church preserve the writings of someone they condemned? Why did they preserve the historical evidence of the Gnostics, the Arians, the Novatians, the Paulicians, Arnoldists, Herricians, Petro-Brussians, Waldenses, Peterines, Albigenses, Stundists, the Manicheans and many more "heretical groups" but for some reason they wiped clean any evidence of the "true" Christians in the early Church, the ancestors of the Baptists?

Why did the "catholics" conspire to destroy every early "Baptist" manuscript, why did they scrub clean all the "Baptist" writings on the cave walls in which they supposedly hid for 1,000 years? Why such a successful, elaborate conspiracy against just the early Baptists, so that there is not one account of anyone in the first six hundred years of Christianity referrring to baptism as solely an act of obedience/profession of faith?

Conspiracy?? Or maybe the uncomfortable truth for Baptists is that there were no early "Baptists" in the first six centuries of Christianity! That is why there is NO evidence!

 

[Yeshua1]

Thank you Brother James for your comments.

The early "Church" condemned Tertullian. They condemned him for being a Montanist: the belief that all sins committed after baptism are unforgiveable.

Tertullian urged non-married persons, widows, and infants to wait as long as possible before being baptized because BAPTISM, in his opinion, WASHES AWAY SINS.

Why would the "catholic" church preserve the writings of someone they condemned? Why did they preserve the historical evidence of the Gnostics, the Arians, the Novatians, the Paulicians, Arnoldists, Herricians, Petro-Brussians, Waldenses, Peterines, Albigenses, Stundists, the Manicheans and many more "heretical groups" but for some reason they wiped clean any evidence of the "true" Christians in the early Church, the ancestors of the Baptists?

Why did the "catholics" conspire to destroy every early "Baptist" manuscript, why did they scrub clean all the "Baptist" writings on the cave walls in which they supposedly hid for 1,000 years. Why such a successful, elaborate conspiracy against just the early Baptists, so that there is not one account of anyone in the first six hundred years of Christianity referrring to baptism as solely an act of obedience/profession of faith?

Conspiracy?? Or maybe the uncomfortable truth for Baptists is that there were no early "Baptists" in the first six centuries of Christianity? That is why there is NO evidence!

Apostasy had already started to creep into early church during Apostolic era, so no doubt the historians recording much of the "historical facts" did it rom the prespective of a church already decidly going away from the "faith once and for all delivered to the saints"

What is far more imporant than what church father stated is "was it found in the Bible?"

 

[Wittenberger]

Apostasy had already started to creep into early church during Apostolic era, so no doubt the historians recording much of the "historical facts" did it rom the prespective of a church already decidly going away from the "faith once and for all delivered to the saints"

What is far more imporant than what church father stated is "was it found in the Bible?"

Brother Yeshua, you and your Baptist/evangelical brothers and sisters have no more evidence that your interpretation of the Bible is correct than the Mormons.

Both groups believe that your interpretation is "so obvious" just by reading the Bible with the help of the Holy Spirit. The problem is that neither Baptists or Mormons can prove to anyone that the voice they are listening to is the Holy Spirit, themselves, or Satan himself.

Orthodox Christians can confirm their position on regenerational baptism with historical writings and evidence from the second century after Christ, less than 100 years after the death of the Apostle John.

Someone has sold you a false doctrine, brother Yeshua! It has no support other than the voice inside of you telling you that you are right.

Anyone can twist the Scriptures to say whatever they want it to say. That is why the Mormons and JW's are growing leaps and bounds: because they give the same answer when asked for proof of their golden tablets from Moroni and their other false doctrines. "The Holy Spirit tells us we are right!", they say. The Holy Spirit can't be speaking in an inner voice to ALL of you, no matter how passionately all of you believe that your interpretation is "just so obvious".

The historical records of the Church Fathers AND the documents of the heretics, such as Tertullian, confirm that early Christians believed that baptism washed away sins and that infants should be baptized.

Don't act like Mormons and keep repeating "The Bible alone tells us we are right!".

The Mormon Church is not a Christian Church.

The Baptists are a Christian denomination, but you have believed a false doctrine, by the same principles of understanding/interpreting Scripture as do the Mormons.

 

[Bro. James]

Thank you Brother James for your comments.

The early "Church" condemned Tertullian. They condemned him for being a Montanist: the belief that all sins committed after baptism are unforgiveable.

Tertullian urged non-married persons, widows, and infants to wait as long as possible before being baptized because BAPTISM, in his opinion, WASHES AWAY SINS.

Why would the "catholic" church preserve the writings of someone they condemned? Why did they preserve the historical evidence of the Gnostics, the Arians, the Novatians, the Paulicians, Arnoldists, Herricians, Petro-Brussians, Waldenses, Peterines, Albigenses, Stundists, the Manicheans and many more "heretical groups" but for some reason they wiped clean any evidence of the "true" Christians in the early Church, the ancestors of the Baptists?

Why did the "catholics" conspire to destroy every early "Baptist" manuscript, why did they scrub clean all the "Baptist" writings on the cave walls in which they supposedly hid for 1,000 years? Why such a successful, elaborate conspiracy against just the early Baptists, so that there is not one account of anyone in the first six hundred years of Christianity referrring to baptism as solely an act of obedience/profession of faith?

Conspiracy?? Or maybe the uncomfortable truth for Baptists is that there were no early "Baptists" in the first six centuries of Christianity! That is why there is NO evidence!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Where is the evidence that M. Luther was excommunicated by The Church? What authority did Martin get from Rome?

Generalities and stereotypes do not have much credibility.

This is not about a name, but rather a faith and practice. See Jude 3, actually, the whole book.

The historicity of scriptural baptism as well The Bride of Christ can be proven by comparing the practice of the Churches in the Book of Acts to the practice of the Churches today. If one finds scriptural baptism practiced today, it is reasonable to conclude that it has also been practiced in every generation. A look at the secular history corroborates this position, not that it needs such verification. The promise of Jesus to never leave nor forsake His Bride should be sufficient even for those with closed minds. The holy fathers were not inspired--what they wrote was not God breathed.

That this has been a bone of contention for hundreds of years should be evident by studying: History of the Inquisitions, History of the Evangelical Churches of the Valleys of Piedmont, Cardinal Hosius, Catholic Encyclopedia, Against Heresies, etal, etal etal.

Millions have died refusing to baptize their infants and to bow to Rome. What about all those folk in Constantinople who do not bow to Rome?

Someone is speaking with forked tongue.

Notice: the word Baptist has not been used in this post.

We do err, not knowing the Scripture and the power of God.

Even so, come Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

 

[Wittenberger]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Where is the evidence that M. Luther was excommunicated by The Church? What authority did Martin get from Rome?

Generalities and stereotypes do not have much credibility.

This is not about a name, but rather a faith and practice. See Jude 3, actually, the whole book.

The historicity of scriptural baptism as well The Bride of Christ can be proven by comparing the practice of the Churches in the Book of Acts to the practice of the Churches today. If one finds scriptural baptism practiced today, it is reasonable to conclude that it has also been practiced in every generation. A look at the secular history corroborates this position, not that it needs such verification. The promise of Jesus to never leave nor forsake His Bride should be sufficient even for those with closed minds. The holy fathers were not inspired--what they wrote was not God breathed.

That this has been a bone of contention for hundreds of years should be evident by studying: History of the Inquisitions, History of the Evangelical Churches of the Valleys of Piedmont, Cardinal Hosius, Catholic Encyclopedia, Against Heresies, etal, etal etal.

Millions have died refusing to baptize their infants and to bow to Rome. What about all those folk in Constantinople who do not bow to Rome?

Someone is speaking with forked tongue.

Notice: the word Baptist has not been used in this post.

We do err, not knowing the Scripture and the power of God.

Even so, come Lord Jesus.

Bro. James

Your arguments for the validity of your interpretation of the Bible are the exact same ones used by the Mormons. See below:

http://dwhamby1.wordpress.com/2008/05/05/do-mormons-have-any-evidence-of-their-claims/

 

[The Biblicist]

Brother Yeshua, you and your Baptist/evangelical brothers and sisters have no more evidence that your interpretation of the Bible is correct than the Mormons.

Would you like to put that rediculous presumptive idea to the test! Baptists never intepret scriptures by FEELINGS but by contextual confirmation. No text of scripture provides for two contrary interpretations UNLESS it is ripped out of context.


However, that is precisely how Mormons intepret scripture just like you do and Rome and just like the Pharisees of Christ's day - tradition over scriptures.

 

[Yeshua1]

Would you like to put that rediculous presumptive idea to the test! Baptists never intepret scriptures by FEELINGS but by contextual confirmation. No text of scripture provides for two contrary interpretations UNLESS it is ripped out of context.


However, that is precisely how Mormons intepret scripture just like you do and Rome and just like the Pharisees of Christ's day - tradition over scriptures.

Bigdifference between baptists and the Mormons/JW/RCC etc is that we try to base all of our doctrines and practices upon what ONLY is contained in the bible, our theology and views spring from the Bible to us, while those others have their theolgies already established by their "extar biblical" sources, so have theology first, not finding it in the bible, get it from their own establish "traditions and sources!"

 

[Walter]

Bigdifference between baptists and the Mormons/JW/RCC etc is that we try to base all of our doctrines and practices upon what ONLY is contained in the bible, our theology and views spring from the Bible to us, while those others have their theolgies already established by their "extar biblical" sources, so have theology first, not finding it in the bible, get it from their own establish "traditions and sources!"

I will post some of what I just posted on another thread. The doctrine of sola scriptura cannot be a unifying principle. It follows from this that the only real unifying principle is sufficient agreement with those who agree with one's own interpretation of scripture. But if that's the case, then it logically follows that sola scriptura logically collapses into solO scriptura. This shows that the only principle of unity is your own opinion. Again, look at the degree of disagreement between two evangelicals, Moriah and DHK. Both claim they adhere to 'sola scriptura' and both insist that the Holy Spriit has lead them to their conclusions. They both cannot be right, can they? You see, even if you come to the table with your presuppositions, you still can't demonstrate that you are correct as opposed to the guy with whom you disagree who also claims to be correct. Since it is undeniable that there are many competing interpretations of scripture, your argument rests on a claim to interior illumination, right? And I think any idea of "supernatural" assurance of truth is doubtful since many hold to it, and it is the historic protestant understanding, and yet many disagree. Is the Holy Spirit supernaturally assuring them of conflicting doctrines? Or are they, in reality, not assured? Neither is acceptable to me.

Many people on this board seem to have accepted that fallible is just part of the ballgame in following God. I know that I am fallible, but I do not accept that God has left His truth to the winds and tides of protestant sects. Of men who claim to be of God, but really do not know His truth. I believe that God preserved his truth, and access to it through every generation in the Catholic Church.

 

[reformed_baptist]

A Baptist pastor sent me the following link as proof that most early Christians did not believe in infant baptism.

Maybe its just me, but the text seems to give support for just the opposite.

It seems that Tertullian not only encouraged infants to hold off on baptism, but he also advised non-married persons and widows to delay baptism. Why? It certainly wasn't because he believed that baptism was just an act of obedience/public profession of faith!

What was his reasoning? Click on the link below, read and decide for yourself.

http://www.newadvent.org/fathers/0321.htm

The ECF were as prone to error as people today are, tertullian believed that Baptism had a sacremental aspect to it therefore he suggested that it should be put off. The study of the Ef practices in regards to baptisms is a long and arduous study my freind, but one thing is for sure, there was no agreement that the lutheran way was widesly taught as it is basically Romanish in origin

 

[TCGreek]

There is no consensus among the Fathers on anything really. I rather Scripture to substantiate my doctrines than the oft erratic Fathers.

 

[Wittenberger]

The ECF were as prone to error as people today are, tertullian believed that Baptism had a sacremental aspect to it therefore he suggested that it should be put off. The study of the Ef practices in regards to baptisms is a long and arduous study my freind, but one thing is for sure, there was no agreement that the lutheran way was widesly taught as it is basically Romanish in origin

The Lutheran, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Anglican positions on baptism are exactly the same. It is the same because these are the beliefs passed down from the apostles to the early church fathers who passed them down to us.

Your doctrine of symbolic baptism doesn't appear until approximately 1,000 AD.

It is a new doctrine. It is false teaching. It is only your opinion.

 

[Rooselk]

Wittenburger, As someone who was formerly a Baptist and became a Lutheran after reading many of the writings of the Church Fathers, I believe you have called it exactly right. And it was precisely the Baptist teachings on baptism and the Lord's Supper, which I could not reconcile with what I read in the Bible, that caused me to read the Church Fathers and early church history.

 

[Michael Wrenn]

The Lutheran, Roman Catholic, Eastern Orthodox, and Anglican positions on baptism are exactly the same. It is the same because these are the beliefs passed down from the apostles to the early church fathers who passed them down to us.

Your doctrine of symbolic baptism doesn't appear until approximately 1,000 AD.

It is a new doctrine. It is false teaching. It is only your opinion.

I was going to stop posting on this forum, but I was reading this thread and have to correct your error -- one of many that you have made. There are at least seven Anglican positions on baptism:

"In his summary of the situation from 1810 onwards, Nockles detects at least seven different strands of thought on the subject[23]:

1. The Extreme Highchurch view: This insisted that the spiritual effects of baptism were inseparable from it even to the point of an opus operatum or purely mechanical understanding of the rite and this was the only acceptable doctrine of the Church of England.(pp. 230,232,233)

2. The moderate HighChurch: While holding a high view of Baptismal Regeneration themselves, they recognised diversity of opinion must arise but held that the Liturgy provided a corrective.(p. 235)

3. Calvinist Evangelicals: These accepted a rigorous doctrine of predestination, and with it that of antecedent grace, and therefore denied baptismal regeneration outright as unscriptural.(p. 229)

4. The majority of Evangelicals: For them baptism was little more than initiation into the visible Church.(p. 229)

5. Some of the former: The "little more" included the recognition of baptism at least as a sign of regeneration as stated by Article 27 of the Thirty-Nine Articles(p. 229)

6. The moderate Evangelicals: These, and J.B. Sumner (Archb of Canterbury 1848-62) was one, accepted what was, from the Highchurch perspective, a modified version of the doctrine in which the spiritual effects are not inseparably tied to the rite. While holding this position, Sumner was not prepared to label Gorham's Calvinistic arguments heretical and insisted that Elizabethan divines (theologians) had allowed that the grace of spiritual regeneration could be separated from the sacrament of Baptism.(p. 230)

7. A Protestant position: Formulated in the first instance by James Mozley as he moved away from Tractarianism and investigated the opinions of early generations of highchurch theologians on baptismal regeneration as Sumner had done. He discovered "statements made sometimes, which, if put into easy English and placed before our [Highchurch] friends, would be set down as heresy, but which occur in undoubtedly orthodox authorities"(quoted Nockles, p. 234)

 

[Wittenberger]

I was going to stop posting on this forum, but I was reading this thread and have to correct your error -- one of many that you have made. There are at least seven Anglican positions on baptism:

"In his summary of the situation from 1810 onwards, Nockles detects at least seven different strands of thought on the subject[23]:

1. The Extreme Highchurch view: This insisted that the spiritual effects of baptism were inseparable from it even to the point of an opus operatum or purely mechanical understanding of the rite and this was the only acceptable doctrine of the Church of England.(pp. 230,232,233)

2. The moderate HighChurch: While holding a high view of Baptismal Regeneration themselves, they recognised diversity of opinion must arise but held that the Liturgy provided a corrective.(p. 235)

3. Calvinist Evangelicals: These accepted a rigorous doctrine of predestination, and with it that of antecedent grace, and therefore denied baptismal regeneration outright as unscriptural.(p. 229)

4. The majority of Evangelicals: For them baptism was little more than initiation into the visible Church.(p. 229)

5. Some of the former: The "little more" included the recognition of baptism at least as a sign of regeneration as stated by Article 27 of the Thirty-Nine Articles(p. 229)

6. The moderate Evangelicals: These, and J.B. Sumner (Archb of Canterbury 1848-62) was one, accepted what was, from the Highchurch perspective, a modified version of the doctrine in which the spiritual effects are not inseparably tied to the rite. While holding this position, Sumner was not prepared to label Gorham's Calvinistic arguments heretical and insisted that Elizabethan divines (theologians) had allowed that the grace of spiritual regeneration could be separated from the sacrament of Baptism.(p. 230)

7. A Protestant position: Formulated in the first instance by James Mozley as he moved away from Tractarianism and investigated the opinions of early generations of highchurch theologians on baptismal regeneration as Sumner had done. He discovered "statements made sometimes, which, if put into easy English and placed before our [Highchurch] friends, would be set down as heresy, but which occur in undoubtedly orthodox authorities"(quoted Nockles, p. 234)

I stand corrected.

You can't pin modern day Anglicans down to any specific doctrinal positions held by the entire Communion. It is a very, very, very big tent. I find it bewildering. You have to ask each parish what their doctrinal positions are.

Go to any Lutheran Church in the world and the doctrines will be the same. You will find variations in positions on social issues and style of worship (Liberal denominations vs. conservative denominations, the ELCA vs. the LCMS) but the central doctrines will be the same.

Maybe its the German in me, but I like order!

 

[humblethinker]

Coming from a background of carroll's http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trail_of_Blood Trail of Blood I find this discussion interesting. I am of the opinion that the fundamental Baptist church that proposed this view of church history to me when I inquired did not do good by me nor the truth.

What do Baptists have to offer as an answer to the question of legitimacy from a historical perspective? It seems that the 'essentials' for what makes a church a true church would have to be drastically lower than what they are commonly elevated to today. For instance, the Montanists and Donatists believed some doctrines that no fundy baptist church would accept a 'transfer of letter' or 'by statement' of a current day donatist/montanist church member (if such a church were even to still exist) yet they will surely claim those ancient churches in their lineage to the apostles' early church. I know I may be asking too much of fundybapts to hold themselves to intellectual and historical honesty but I cannot accept their duplicity... I digress... I think you know what I'm saying...

 

[The Biblicist]

Coming from a background of carroll's http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Trail_of_Blood Trail of Blood I find this discussion interesting. I am of the opinion that the fundamental Baptist church that proposed this view of church history to me when I inquired did not do good by me nor the truth.

What do Baptists have to offer as an answer to the question of legitimacy from a historical perspective? It seems that the 'essentials' for what makes a church a true church would have to be drastically lower than what they are commonly elevated to today. For instance, the Montanists and Donatists believed some doctrines that no fundy baptist church would accept a 'transfer of letter' or 'by statement' of a current day donatist/montanist church member (if such a church were even to still exist) yet they will surely claim those ancient churches in their lineage to the apostles' early church. I know I may be asking too much of fundybapts to hold themselves to intellectual and historical honesty but I cannot accept their duplicity... I digress... I think you know what I'm saying...

When you open yourself up to swallow the absolute nonsense of the Roman Catholic Church's selectively preserved and edited materials they call "Church history" you are on a down hill slide to apostasy.

First, where are you going to draw a line to what you will accept as true and false? With the apostolic fathers? With the Ante-Nicene Fathers? With the Nicene Father's? With somewhere within the Post-Nicene Father's? If you do not draw a line somewhere you will become a member of the Roman Catholic Church as these materials were selectively preserved by Rome to show the true apostate development of her system away from the New Testament faith and practice.

Second, do you realize that the New Testament writers provide prophetic insights that predict and aide in rightly intepreting uninspired post-Apostolic Christian writings?? Do you realize that the New Testament provides predictive characteristics to identify Post-Apostolic apostate Christianity? Do you realize that the New Testament provides predictive characteristics of how post-apostate Christianity will treat and represent true New Testament Christianity until Jesus comes again? I suspect you do not.

 

[humblethinker]

When you open yourself up to swallow the absolute nonsense of the Roman Catholic Church's selectively preserved and edited materials they call "Church history" you are on a down hill slide to apostasy.

First, where are you going to draw a line to what you will accept as true and false? With the apostolic fathers? With the Ante-Nicene Fathers? With the Nicene Father's? With somewhere within the Post-Nicene Father's? If you do not draw a line somewhere you will become a member of the Roman Catholic Church as these materials were selectively preserved by Rome to show the true apostate development of her system away from the New Testament faith and practice.

Second, do you realize that the New Testament writers provide prophetic insights that predict and aide in rightly intepreting uninspired post-Apostolic Christian writings?? Do you realize that the New Testament provides predictive characteristics to identify Post-Apostolic apostate Christianity? Do you realize that the New Testament provides predictive characteristics of how post-apostate Christianity will treat and represent true New Testament Christianity until Jesus comes again? I suspect you do not.

You offer some great questions! I have been aware of these questions and reasoning but it is good to consider them again. Since I am not presently of an opinion of certainty to your questions would you mind giving me the answers with which you are comfortable with?

Also, I presented a conundrum, at least for me, and your answer seems to be "don't doubt the 'Trail of Blood' or else you will certainly become a Catholic". I wish you'd have directed your answer to my post instead of telling me, with seemingly paranoid assertions, not to look at the Catholic's side of the story. If it is actually 'absolute nonsense', as you say, then why on earth would you think I would believe it?

 

[Thinkingstuff]

When you open yourself up to swallow the absolute nonsense of the Roman Catholic Church's selectively preserved and edited materials they call "Church history" you are on a down hill slide to apostasy.

That sounds like you are saying that by "believing the facts of history, Docmented support for propositions, archeological finds and the plethera of evidence that exist" In short "by believing the "truth about things" you are on the slippery slide to heresy. Or in effect believe this new truth I'm presenting because if you rely on facts that can be researched you'll end up Catholic. I knew a pentecostal Preacher down in Lakeland Fl. who said the "problem with Christians is education! Christians shouldn't get educated because education leads people away from God! They get too smart for their own good." do you concure with this mans belief?