Waldes of Lyons' Profession of Faith

[Doubting Thomas]

I'm still trying to wind down my participation and take a break for a while. So I was following this discussion, and waiting to see how D28 or David would answer that. It seems they're not right now, so I felt it really needed to be addressed.

I understand. Posting meaningful responses on this board can be time consuming. I look to have a busy week myself, so I may not be able to meaningfully answer your main points until THURSDAY night (unless I can find time during a lunch break). But I'll just address the following two questions/points...

Is that a separate book from his "Early Christian DOCTRINES"?

Yes, Early Christian CREEDs is a different book from Early Christian DOCTRINES, written by the same author. (I've read both). The former concentrates primarily of the development of the creeds--Apostles, Nicene (proper), and the Nicene-Constantinopoltian (what's called "the Nicene creed")--from the earlier pre-creedal fragments, baptismal confessions (especially the "Old Roman Creed), "rules of faith", etc.

What I have seen from this book is that the creedal position developed, rather than being passed down whole.

Exactly. Both books make that point.

Later...

 

[Matt Black]

Matt,

I don't see any attacks by Waldes in this 1180 statement. ("We believe in one Church, Catholic, holy, apostolic, and immaculate... We do not in any way reject the sacraments which are celebrated in it... nor do we disparage the ecclesiastical offices...)

It is interesting to consider that the Third Lateran Council was held at approximately the same time (1179) that Waldes made his profession of faith. Perhaps the local bishop would not allow Waldes to preach so he appealed to the Pope. Then, when Alexander III forbid "preaching by either Waldes or his followers unless welcomed by the local priests," the ball was in motion for the Waldensian attacks on authority, etc.

CA

Point taken; to my mind he's very similar to St Francis a generation later.

 

[Matt Black]

Yes, Early Christian CREEDs is a different book from Early Christian DOCTRINES, written by the same author. (I've read both).

I've only read the latter, but it was very good

Exactly. Both books make that point.

Later...

Without wishing to steal your thunder, re the point about 'development', I personally don't see that as a problem, particularly in the immediate sub-/post-Apostolic Age; the New Testament similarly 'developed' over the first century, and yet I don't see anyone here calling that into question because of that.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

I've only read the latter, but it was very good

Without wishing to steal your thunder, re the point about 'development', I personally don't see that as a problem, particularly in the immediate sub-/post-Apostolic Age; the New Testament similarly 'developed' over the first century, and yet I don't see anyone here calling that into question because of that.

[/quote]
Very good point. In fact the limits of the Canon weren't [I]finally[/I] "fixed" until late 4th/early 5th century, about the same time of the great Trinitarian and Christological formulations. Several books (about 5-7) had remained in dispute in various parts of the Church until that time.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

So as promised (if you're still interested), here's my full response...

Still, the way you are applying it assumes that there was a whole bunch of stuff left out of the scriptures.

It depends on what you mean by "whole bunch of stuff" and by "left out". Remember, the NT was neither a liturgical church instruction manual nor a handbook of systematic theology. The Apostolic preaching/teaching and the worshipping Church preceeded any of the written NT, and the NT writings were in the forms of narratives (proclaming the life of Christ and the earliet history of the Church) and epistles written to already existing congregations, many of which dealt with issues specific to the congregation addressed and thus did not individually (nor necessarily collectively either) contain every single saying or teaching ever uttered by Paul and the other apostles (and obviously not from the apostles who didn't leave any epistles that we know of). However, the church indeed recognized the apostolic authority behind these writings, as these writings conformed to what was already authoritatively taught orally (without including every liturgical or catechetical detail). So, in words of JND Kelly: "Throughout the whole period Scripture and tradition ranked as complimentary authorities, media different in form but coincident in content" (Early Christian Doctrines pp 47-48--emphasis mine).


I had said....
'No, not just by "reading them", but also in reflecting how the truths (to which the Scriptures testify) were lived out in the worshipping communities from the beginning in it's liturgical life of prayer, hymns, catechesis, rule of faith, baptismal confessions, etc. ('Lex orandi, Lex credendi'--"the rule of prayer is the rule of belief") For instance, the Church knew Arianism was wrong because it taught a different "Christ"--ie, a creature--from the One she had been worshipping and praying to from the beginning as God. Those who disregarded this ecclesial context/understanding, read the Scriptures differently and thus came to a different formulation.'

To which you responded....

So you're suggesting now that it is the worship that contained all of these details (including the forms such as catachisms, etc) that the apostles held from the scriptures and passed down orally only?

Yeah, basically, for reasons noted above--altough I would say the worship and catechesis contained these "details". Of course some of these "oral" traditions not specifically written in Scriptures, were later themselves crystallized in writings which outlined the Baptismal confessions/interrogations, and described the "rules of faith" (etc)--which again were "media different in form, but coincident in content" with what had already been written down in (what was to become) the NT writings.

Again the letter from Pliny to Trajan says the Christian meetings were much simpler than that. All of that stuff developed afterwards, along with the creedal concepts.

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "all that stuff", but I assume you are referring to the more elaborate ceremonies of the liturgy which developed with time. Of course, I agree that things were simpler in the beginning. Things were by nature simpler when folks were meeting primarily in houses, and by necessity when they had to meet in the catacombs. However, very early on the two-fold pattern of the liturgy became standard (as witnessed by Justin Martyr and Hippolytus for example): (1)the liturgy of the word--in which Scriptures were read, prayers were offered, and a sermon was given; and (2) the liturgy of the Eucharist--when more prayers and hymns were offered and the Eucharist was celebrated. The former was analgous to the synagogue services of the Jews, and the latter represented the fulfilled Temple worship (with the sacrifice of Christ commemorated/re-presented in the Eucharist replacing the animal sacrifices of the Old Covenant). Now as the historical circumstances permitted (ie they had their own buildings, perscution stopped, etc) the liturgy became more elaborate (new hymns/prayers, more purposeful architecture, more stately ceremonial, etc) but the basic pattern (has) remained the same. However, this did not develop haphazardly or ad hoc, but there was for the most part an organic continuation with what preceeded it.

Then I had mentioned...
'So where in the Nicene-Constantinopalitan creed does it say the the Son and Spirit were "sitting side by side with Him from all times"? Rather it says that Son is "begotten of the Father" and the Spirit "proceeds from the Father". How is that supposedly different from the ante-Nicene position?'

They way people describe the "eternal three"; the pictures the Church used to draw, etc.

That some folks may have described the Trinity in a certain way or drew pictures in a certain way (whatever way you have in mind) is no fault of the creed of Nicea(-Constantinople). However, the phrase "eternal three" per se is not out of keeping with Nicea, as long as one remembers that the Son is "begotten" of the (even if immanent in, yet distinct from--according to the earlier conception) the Father "from all eternity" and the Spirit "proceeds" from the Father "from all eternity"--ie neither the Son or the Spirit were created, though they "derive from" (or "flow out of") the Father. The Father is indeed the fount of divinity, but "there never was a 'was' when the Spirit and Son were not". These truths were certainly affirmed in the Creed and were continuous with what was before it.

(Continued...)

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Continuing on....


I then pointed out how Arians, who disregarded the Apostolic Tradition (ie "pattern of sound words" handed down in the Church) would throw proof texts--interpreted in light of their presuppositions (ie their "take" of the nature of God, etc)--back in forth with the orthodox catholics in arguing their case. I then mentioned how the Church, having recourse to her Tradition which guided it's interpretation of Scriptures, were able to proclaim the truth she had always believed by using a more refined "formula" to more specifically exclude heresy. You followed with this....

The key words there: "their own 'take'--influenced by their own philosophical convictions"
The scriptures said what they mean, and passages like John 1 are clear. It is only when one comes up with their own presupposition (e.g. if he's man, he can't be God; etc) that reinterpretation is forced. Whatever oral apostolic and worship teaching will naturally agree with the meaning of scripture.

What you say is true, as far as it goes. However, one man's "philosophical conviction" and "logical meaning" may be another man's "forced interpretation". I mean, you and I agree that those who misintrepret John 1 ignore the clear meaning--the one you and I both agree on describing Christ's deity and preexistence. However, due to the philosophical lenses through which others view the text, what's clear to us may not be obvious to them. Another case in point is our disagreement on the meaning of the Eucharistic passages. We've been through this before (and I don't have time tonight to hash it out again), but what I see as the natural clear meaning when reading these texts (ie supporting the realist position), you see differently because of your different presuppositions (specifically stated or implied in previous discussions about this). And examples can be multiplied--Calvinism vs Arminianism (or monergism vs synergism), etc. The point is, in the cases of the real presence (in the Eucharist) and synergism (in soteriology), I can point to the consensus of the Church--across time and space--as agreeing with my reading; just as I can in appealing to this consensus in supporting orthodox/biblical Trinitarianism and Christology.

What you're doing is suggesting is that the scriptures are actually AMBIGUOUS; potentially supporting EITHER interpretation, so its the oral tradition that must come in with its additional details to settle the score.

Not really "ambiguous", but lesser or greater degrees of "perspicuity"--particularly for those of us centuries removed from the thought patterns/culture in which the Scriptures were written. After all, even the Apostle Peter said there were some hard things in Paul's writings that were twisted by untaught and unstable men (like they did with other Scriptures). As to the point of oral tradition "settling the score", I'll just quote Kelly again (and this actually follows immediately in the book after the sentence I already cited above):
"To inquire which counted as superior or more ultimate is to pose the question in misleading and anachronistic terms. If Scripture was abundantly sufficient in principle, tradition was recognized as the surest clue to its interpretation, for in tradition the Church retained, as a legacy from the apostles which were embedded in all the organs of her institutional life, an unerring grasp of the real purport and meaning of the revelation to which Scripture and tradition alive bore witness." (ibid. p 48). I think this sums up the matter nicely, and is remarkably similar to the point Vincent of Lerins made regarding the relationship between Scripture and the Chruch's standard of Tradition in his famous Commonitory.

(Which makes the notion of "twisting" scripture moot. The "tradition" is what they twisted, using scripture, rather than the other way around, according to your view)

Not at all. It's not one or the other--it's both. The heretics twisted Tradition in the process of twisting Scripture (and vice versa) since Scripture is the authoritative written Tradition. As mentioned above, Scripture and Tradition are complimentary, distinct yet inseperable (again, "media different in form, but coincident in content"--Kelly), as they testify to the same TRUTH.

Just because people USED proof texts or sola scriptura and came up with wrong ideas doesn't mean we throw out the baby with the bathwater. The Church used tradition and still split right down the middle, and did all sorts of things during the Dark Ages.

Actually there was a failure to apply and abide by tradition as mentioned by St. Vincent's rule of "universality, antiquity, and consent" (particularly concerning the papacy and the filioque), and unfortunately there was a lot sinful pride on both sides. :tear:

As far as "throwing the baby out with the bathwater", sola Scriptura was never the "baby" to begin with.
If anyone threw out the "baby with the bathwater", it was the sola Scripturists of the Reformation who to varying degrees and in different ways departed from the Apostolic Tradition in their protests (many legitimate) against Rome.

I had inquired what you found wrong about Nicene creed, and you replied...

(I also said the Nicene formula was the best of the competing views; though I do not believe it is perfect).

Thanks for the clarification. But in what way is it not perfect, how would you improve it? If you mean by "perfect" the ability to "fully grasp" the Trinity, then I agree and would add that there will never be such a "perfect" formula. However, if the purpose of the Creed was to clarify, in response to opposite heretical "extremes", how we are not to think about the Trinity--ie proclaiming what ideas of the Trinity are "out of bounds"--then I think the formula does it's job perfectly.

(I would respond to what you said about "wolves", but I have run out of time...and "out of gas" so to speak...)

Peace

 

[Matt Black]

:thumbs: to all of that

 

[Doubting Thomas]

:thumbs: to all of that

Thanks again. Though reading through it again this morning I spotted on key typo (I'm sure there are more--I typed this late last night "past my bedtime"): in JND Kelly's second quote--regarding the relationship of Tradition and Scripture--it should be "aliKe" rather than "aliVE". Here's the corrected quote (pg48 Early Christian Doctrines):

"To inquire which counted as superior or more ultimate is to pose the question in misleading and anachronistic terms. If Scripture was abundantly sufficient in principle, tradition was recognized as the surest clue to its interpretation, for in tradition the Church retained, as a legacy from the apostles which were embedded in all the organs of her institutional life, an unerring grasp of the real purport and meaning of the revelation to which Scripture and tradition alike bore witness."

 

[Eric B]

However, very early on the two-fold pattern of the liturgy became standard (as witnessed by Justin Martyr and Hippolytus for example): (1)the liturgy of the word--in which Scriptures were read, prayers were offered, and a sermon was given; and (2) the liturgy of the Eucharist--when more prayers and hymns were offered and the Eucharist was celebrated. The former was analgous to the synagogue services of the Jews, and the latter represented the fulfilled Temple worship (with the sacrifice of Christ commemorated/re-presented in the Eucharist replacing the animal sacrifices of the Old Covenant).

OK. Nobody here is arguing against any of this. Just about every Christian group I know of would admit that much was probably what the early Church service was like. That doesn't mean the rest of the developed doctrine or interpretations that later went along with it was from the apostles.

It depends on what you mean by "whole bunch of stuff" and by "left out". Remember, the NT was neither a liturgical church instruction manual nor a handbook of systematic theology. The Apostolic preaching/teaching and the worshipping Church preceeded any of the written NT, and the NT writings were in the forms of narratives and epistles written to already existing congregations, many of which dealt with issues specific to the congregation addressed and thus did not individually contain every single saying or teaching ever uttered by Paul and the other apostles. However, the church indeed recognized the apostolic authority behind these writings, as these writings conformed to what was already authoritatively taught orally (without including every liturgical or catechetical detail). So, in words of JND Kelly: "Throughout the whole period Scripture and tradition ranked as complimentary authorities, media different in form but coincident in content" (Early Christian Doctrines pp 47-48--emphasis mine).

I'm not entirely sure what you mean by "all that stuff", but I assume you are referring to the more elaborate ceremonies of the liturgy which developed with time. Of course, I agree that things were simpler in the beginning. Things were by nature simpler when folks were meeting primarily in houses, and by necessity when they had to meet in the catacombs. Now as the historical circumstances permitted (ie they had their own buildings, perscution stopped, etc) the liturgy became more elaborate (new hymns/prayers, more purposeful architecture, more stately ceremonial, etc) but the basic pattern (has) remained the same. However, this did not develop haphazardly or ad hoc, but there was for the most part an organic continuation with what preceeded it.

Not really "ambiguous", but lesser or greater degrees of "perspicuity"--particularly for those of us centuries removed from the thought patterns/culture in which the Scriptures were written. After all, even the Apostle Peter said there were some hard things in Paul's writings that were twisted by untaught and unstable men (like they did with other Scriptures). As to the point of oral tradition "settling the score", I'll just quote Kelly again:
"To inquire which counted as superior or more ultimate is to pose the question in misleading and anachronistic terms. If Scripture was abundantly sufficient in principle, tradition was recognized as the surest clue to its interpretation, for in tradition the Church retained, as a legacy from the apostles which were embedded in all the organs of her institutional life, an unerring grasp of the real purport and meaning of the revelation to which Scripture and tradition alive bore witness." (ibid. p 48). I think this sums up the matter nicely, and is remarkably similar to the point Vincent of Lerins made regarding the relationship between Scripture and the Chruch's standard of Tradition in his famous Commonitory.

The heretics twisted Tradition in the process of twisting Scripture (and vice versa) since Scripture is the authoritative written Tradition. As mentioned above, Scripture and Tradition are complimentary, distinct yet inseperable (again, "media different in form, but coincident in content"--Kelly), as they testify to the same TRUTH.

You again admit that OTHER aspects of Catholic worship that we DO question DID change based on the circumstances. This is all I have argued all along. But then, you can't really say:

Actually there was a failure to apply and abide by tradition as mentioned by St. Vincent's rule of "universality, antiquity, and consent" (particularly concerning the papacy and the filioque),

As far as "throwing the baby out with the bathwater", sola Scriptura was never the "baby" to begin with.
If anyone threw out the "baby with the bathwater", it was the sola Scripturists of the Reformation who to varying degrees and in different ways departed from the Apostolic Tradition in their protests (many legitimate) against Rome.

Many of the "Traditions" clearly devloped AFTER the apostles due to external circumstances. So they fail Vincent's criteria right there. So your ace in the hole will be this "organic continuition", but then, that is precisely where things start to get muddy. The papists will claim the same thing for ALL of the doctrines they added that you reject. The Pope —after all Christ did declare Peter the rock, and it was only because of persecution he couldn't take his rightful reign over the empire. Persecution of heretics? Again; only their lack of power in the first century that prevented that. But Paul's instruction, such as turning someone over to Satan; that shows in "principle" that all this stuff was God's way all along, nd the Spirit guided them into all truth (to adapt to the changing circumstances). Filioque, indulgences, celibate priesthood, etc? They can claim it is all organically connected and pull some proof text from the apostles to show this is what they aimed from the beginning.
This is why the Protestants wanted to start over from Scripture alone. The Church took this "organic continuity" thing and didn't know where to stop with it. The canon may have developed, but the 27 books, while some may have been questioned at times, there was no reason seen by the Protestants to reject them.

one man's "philosophical conviction" and "logical meaning" may be another man's "forced interpretation". due to the philosophical lenses through which others view the text, what's clear to us may not be obvious to them. The point is, in the cases of the real presence (in the Eucharist) and synergism (in soteriology), I can point to the consensus of the Church--across time and space--as agreeing with my reading; just as I can in appealing to this consensus in supporting orthodox/biblical Trinitarianism and Christology.

Again, that is taking man's skewed perspectives, and then using that to relativize scriptural meaning. So then how much more will he do this with oral tradition? Perfect example is the whole claim of "consensus across space and time" in the first place. The early fathers do not lay out doctrines like the Eucharist the way the later Church did, yet quotes are taken from a handful of "fathers in the send century and later; assumed to be fragmants of this "unwritten oral tradition" that was not spelled out in the scripture because it was not an "exhaustive manual", and then project it back to the apostles. Those are AT BEST evidences of your view; not conclusive proof. It still looks to me like part of the development of church doctrine and practice. This is why we believe sola scriptura is better.

That some folks may have described the Trinity in a certain way or drew pictures in a certain way (whatever way you have in mind) is no fault of the creed of Nicea(-Constantinople). However, the phrase "eternal three" per se is not out of keeping with Nicea, as long as one remembers that the Son is "begotten" of the (even if immanent in, yet distinct from--according to the earlier conception) the Father "from all eternity" and the Spirit "proceeds" from the Father "from all eternity"--ie neither the Son or the Spirit were created, though they "derive from" (or "flow out of") the Father. The Father is indeed the fount of divinity, but "there never was a 'was' when the Spirit and Son were not". These truths were certainly affirmed in the Creed and were continuous with what was before it.

Thanks for the clarification. But in what way is it not perfect, how would you improve it? If you mean by "perfect" the ability to "fully grasp" the Trinity, then I agree and would add that there will never be such a "perfect" formula. However, if the purpose of the Creed was to clarify, in response to opposite heretical "extremes", how we are not to think about the Trinity--ie proclaiming what ideas of the Trinity are "out of bounds"--then I think the formula does it's job perfectly.

I think it should have just remained at the 2nd and 3rd century expressions. They were slightly different in that they still made more of a differentiation regarding the Son's eternality. The later expression came up with this "begotten from eternity" concept, which separates the begettal from His birth. Fathers like Tertullian and Hippolytus connected Sonship with his birth (Tertullian sometimes had Sonship beginning at Creation). It was the Word that was the name of the eternal second hypostasis. Since this was feared to still possibly siupport Arianism, the creeds then made Christ's begettal some past eternal event; hence the appearance of three "sitting side by side from all times". (Even though the creed tried to still assign some sort of nominal supremacy of the Father by saying he wasn't begotten).

 

[Matt Black]

Eric, I think what has to be remembered (and here I am indebted to Richard Hooker for his 16th century analysis on this front) is that Scripture - and in particular the NT - is not a 'how to church' manual, whether it be church government or liturgy etc; there are some hints, of course, but it is not comprehensive on these subjects. Therefore it was left to the Church - both in the Apostolic and post-Apostolic periods - to, of necessity, work out these matters itself and it was possible for the Church to do this whilst still maintaining fidelity to Scripture.

 

[Eric B]

Eric, I think what has to be remembered (and here I am indebted to Richard Hooker for his 16th century analysis on this front) is that Scripture - and in particular the NT - is not a 'how to church' manual, whether it be church government or liturgy etc; there are some hints, of course, but it is not comprehensive on these subjects. Therefore it was left to the Church - both in the Apostolic and post-Apostolic periods - to, of necessity, work out these matters itself and it was possible for the Church to do this whilst still maintaining fidelity to Scripture.

OK, but it's clear now that the "oral" tradition was not an exhaustive manual either, and cannot be used to justify whatever later practices the Church decided on. So if we disagree with a "catholic" doctrine not expounded in scripture, then, one, the silence means the subject of that doctrine was probably an issue that was never important or a problem in the first century: hence, as you all say, the scriptures only dealt with issues that needed addressing. Two, we are not obligated fo follow what "Catholic" bodies say; for their interpretations on those issues not addressed or clearly expounded grew out of history just like all others. The only argument you would have left is "apostolic succession", but the NT does not even speak of this in any formal sense, and even those claiming this "sucession" still deviated and added things, practiced things that most of us today would never try to say was biblical (Politics, Dark Ages horrors, etc), and then even split off from each other.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

The only argument you would have left is "apostolic succession", but the NT does not even speak of this in any formal sense,

So what was Judas' vacant seat as an Apostle being replaced called?

ICXC NIKA
-

 

[Eric B]

Precisely my point; they did not continue filling the offices of "the Twelve" beyond the first century.
They did then, but the "succession" as a continuing occurrence was neither taught, nor [obviously!] practiced, afterwards.

 

[Agnus_Dei]

Precisely my point; they did not continue filling the offices of "the Twelve" beyond the first century.
They did then, but the "succession" as a continuing occurrence was neither taught, nor [obviously!] practiced, afterwards.

Then why Eric was Judas’ seat as an Apostle replaced? We have an example of Apostolic Succession right there in the pages of the NT.

Furthermore, how do you know this practice was not taught? The disciples of the Apostles, known as that ‘Apostolic Church Fathers’ practiced it. Were the Apostles in error?

ICXC NIKA
-

 

[Eric B]

Yes, Judas' seat was replaced. I acknowledged that. What I said is they did not maintain this specific 12 seats into the following centuries. so obviously, things changed in the postapostolic period.

 

[bound]

Grace and Peace Everyone,

I don't know much about Waldes of Lyons so forgive me if I fail to offer any comments which might keep this thread on topic. What I would like to do is ask those who profess the necessity of Water Baptism when Tertulian appears to disagree of it's necessity with regard to Children?



And so, according to the circumstances, disposition, and even the age of each individual, the delay of baptism is perferable. This is particularly true 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?.... Let the children come, then while they are growing up. Let them come while they are learning- while they are learning where 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?... If anyone understans the weighty imporatance of baptism, he will fear its reception more than its delay. Sound faith is secure of salvation. ~ Tertullian (c. 198, W), 3.678.



Thank you and God Bless.

 

[David Lamb]

Grace and Peace Everyone,

I don't know much about Waldes of Lyons so forgive me if I fail to offer any comments which might keep this thread on topic. What I would like to do is ask those who profess the necessity of Water Baptism when Tertulian appears to disagree of it's necessity with regard to Children?

Thank you and God Bless.

It seems you may have inadvertently missed something out. What is it you wish to ask those of us who "profess water baptism?" As it stands, your message says in effect, "I would like to ask them when Tertullian appears to disagree." I'm sure you are not asking for an answer like, "10 o'clock on New Years Day 225 A.D." :laugh:

I am not criticising, just wondering.

 

[Doubting Thomas]

Grace and Peace Everyone,

I don't know much about Waldes of Lyons so forgive me if I fail to offer any comments which might keep this thread on topic. What I would like to do is ask those who profess the necessity of Water Baptism when Tertulian appears to disagree of it's necessity with regard to Children?



And so, according to the circumstances, disposition, and even the age of each individual, the delay of baptism is perferable. This is particularly true 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?.... Let the children come, then while they are growing up. Let them come while they are learning- while they are learning where 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?... If anyone understans the weighty imporatance of baptism, he will fear its reception more than its delay. Sound faith is secure of salvation. ~ Tertullian (c. 198, W), 3.678.



Thank you and God Bless.

Check out the last sentance again:
"If anyone understands the weighty imporatance of baptism, he will fear its reception more than its delay. Sound faith is secure of salvation."

Tertullian was a strict rigorist who like many believed that it was very hard to have sins forgiven after baptism. He, like some others, therefore recommended delaying baptism because of this "weighty importance"..in washing away sins. (In some more extreme cases--Constantine, for instance--baptism was delayed until at the end of life) He wanted children to thus be able to reach the age of "sound faith" and reason (ie "able to know Christ") before receiving baptism. This rigorist position was not the majority position but was more characteristic of schismatic groups like Novatians and Montanists (the latter which Tertullian eventually joined)

 

[bound]

It seems you may have inadvertently missed something out. What is it you wish to ask those of us who "profess water baptism?" As it stands, your message says in effect, "I would like to ask them when Tertullian appears to disagree." I'm sure you are not asking for an answer like, "10 o'clock on New Years Day 225 A.D." :laugh:

I am not criticising, just wondering.

Ah, I meant to say "where" not "when".... :laugh:

 

[David Lamb]

Ah, I meant to say "where" not "when".... :laugh:

Now why couldn't I have worked that out for myself? Thanks! That makes much more sense.