Uploaded October 2023 | Updated September 2026, 2 weeks ago
This clip is taken from the larger presentation entitled "The is No Such Thing as A 1st Century Baptist." In this section, I highlight the inaccuracies of the Baptist historian and theologian Dr. Greg Allison in his assessment regarding Tertullian. Oftentimes, Baptists like to bring Tertullian up as a proponent for "credobaptism," but in advocating for credobaptism, did Tertullian deny the validity of infant baptism? In short, no. While Tertullian indeed was an advocate for administering baptism to those who could understand the promises made in baptism, he still upheld the *validity* of infant baptism - such that he described pardons prism as “hastening to the remission of sins” (On Baptism 18). Instead, he thought it was *preferable* to delay baptism based on the same commitment that paedobaptists argue that it is preferable not to delay: that Baptism is indeed salvific. Since baptism forgives sins, Tertullian argues, it is more preferable to delay the administration of baptism so that more sins would be forgiven through the sacrament and that more care can be taken in living after having received the remission of sins due to an increased understanding of its significance by the subject. However, it must be noted, that since baptism is the instrumental means of appropriating the forgiveness of sins and regeneration, that it is far more preferable (as most Christians have held since the very beginning) to baptize as early as possible so that we may be aided by God’s grace as received through this foundational sacrament and likewise be enabled to partake in the Eucharist. In conclusion, Tertullian advocated to delay baptism based off of an inadequate inference from the universal belief regarding the salvific significance of baptism. The Church corrected the misunderstanding and recognizes, as Origen did in the mid-200s, that “the Church receives from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants” (Commentary on Romans 5:9).
▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃
☩ Support the channel on Patreon ➔ patreon.com/user?u=86516614
☩ Subscribe for more theological topics ☩
☩ Share this video with a friend ☩
☩ Check out some more videos!➔ youtube.com/playlist?list=PL2_BwpZtagPuT8QNwe2Jceal1KWeWdQO2
▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃
This clip is taken from the larger presentation entitled "The is No Such Thing as A 1st Century Baptist." In this section, I highlight the inaccuracies of the Baptist historian and theologian Dr. Greg Allison in his assessment regarding Tertullian. Oftentimes, Baptists like to bring Tertullian up as a proponent for "credobaptism," but in advocating for credobaptism, did Tertullian deny the validity of infant baptism? In short, no. While Tertullian indeed was an advocate for administering baptism to those who could understand the promises made in baptism, he still upheld the *validity* of infant baptism - such that he described pardons prism as “hastening to the remission of sins” (On Baptism 18). Instead, he thought it was *preferable* to delay baptism based on the same commitment that paedobaptists argue that it is preferable not to delay: that Baptism is indeed salvific. Since baptism forgives sins, Tertullian argues, it is more preferable to delay the administration of baptism so that more sins would be forgiven through the sacrament and that more care can be taken in living after having received the remission of sins due to an increased understanding of its significance by the subject. However, it must be noted, that since baptism is the instrumental means of appropriating the forgiveness of sins and regeneration, that it is far more preferable (as most Christians have held since the very beginning) to baptize as early as possible so that we may be aided by God’s grace as received through this foundational sacrament and likewise be enabled to partake in the Eucharist. In conclusion, Tertullian advocated to delay baptism based off of an inadequate inference from the universal belief regarding the salvific significance of baptism. The Church corrected the misunderstanding and recognizes, as Origen did in the mid-200s, that “the Church receives from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism even to infants” (Commentary on Romans 5:9).
▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃
☩ Support the channel on Patreon ➔ patreon.com/user?u=86516614
☩ Subscribe for more theological topics ☩
☩ Share this video with a friend ☩
☩ Check out some more videos!➔ youtube.com/playlist?list=PL2_BwpZtagPuT8QNwe2Jceal1KWeWdQO2
▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃▃
