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! Let them know how to ask for salvation, that you may seem (at least) to have given to him that asks. 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, On Baptism, Chapter 18Tertullian previously addressed some doctrines which had fallen into custom in the church. Certainly, as we would see from his principles in the post linked above, Tertullian would not likely call into question a practice that he understood as having been “established by custom” due to it being a “handed down” tradition of “long-continued observance.” Rather, we should understand him to follow his own principle that we should “vindicate the keeping” of such a practice that would have been a custom or tradition at that point. Some of my comments from the post linked above are incorporated in this post below.In Tertullian’s On Baptism in chapter 18 (cited above), we find the very first instance of the practice of infant baptism being mentioned at all – whether in Scripture or otherwise. It is a practice which Tertullian and many even after him could (and would) say that “If you insist upon having positive Scripture injunction, you will find none.” (He stated this exact thing regarding some other early practices in The Chaplet.)Tertullian makes a fourfold recommendation regarding infant baptism here. He states that:The “little children” should have their baptism delayed.Why should the sponsors be put into danger by the failure of the little child to fulfill the promises of the sponsors?They should not be forbidden to come but be permitted to come to Christ “when they have become able to know Christ”.They should not be given baptism until they “know how to ask for salvation” so that they can “have given to him that asks”.This, at a very minimum, should cause you to take a pause if you are someone who believes that the practice of the entire church since the time of the Apostles has been to baptize all infants of Christian parents. If in this earliest mention of infant baptism we see that the practice is actually called into question rather than being accepted as the customary tradition of all of the churches, and we see Tertullian prescribing that children should not be baptized until they are at least old enough “to know Christ” and “ask for salvation”, then we have to ask ourselves some honest questions.In the year 200, was infant baptism not perhaps something that was actually being practiced in the church universal? We have no indication that it was.If we think it was being practiced in some places at a minimum (as it seems to be the case since he was recommending that it should not be done in favor of being delayed), why would Tertullian not have seen enough evidence that it was a universal custom in the Church which had become a tradition after being practiced in a widespread manner earlier on?Can you still honestly say that you think there was a universal custom from the earliest church of the practice of baptizing infants when the first written mention of it points to the fact that, by Tertullian’s reasoning which I have cited, it’s likely that the practice had not seen universal tradition and custom by this point?If it was questioned by Tertullian due to it not being practiced everywhere, what does this mean if you have always simply accepted that it was ever and always practiced and understood to be the custom since the time of the Apostles?Finally, since Tertullian was questioning it in his own context, ought we to assume that there were some cases where others followed his recommendation and waited to baptize their children until they could ask about it? And were there possibly other places where the practice was also being questioned?
Tags: baptismseries-cw

James White, December 14, 2023December 14, 2023, Debate, Islam, Personal, Post-Evangelicalism, Racialism, Reformed Baptist Issues, Roman Catholicism, The Dividing Line, Thomism Back in Phoenix in our regular studio, so we looked briefly at the racist Rutgers professor and “white folks,” then we spent about twenty minutes responding to more of Muhammed Hijab’s opening statement against the Trinity, and then listened to a few minutes of the “Coffee House Sessions” webcast on the modern state of Reformed Baptist and Robert Briggs’ accusation that biblicism is neo-Socinianism and that this is the reason for the division amongst real, confessional Reformed Baptists and those who just “pretend.” Sad days for the RB movement, to be sure.
[embedded content]

In line with what Tertullian would write elsewhere, he expected that there would be enough water to fully immerse the person being baptized. This would meet the criteria mentioned in The Didache of being immersed in moving or still waters. Not only that, but Tertullian links the “sea or a pool, a stream or a fount, a lake or a trough” to the Biblical prescription of baptisms in bodies of water. Also note the emphasis Tertullian placed on the Holy Spirit sanctifying the waters after the invocation of God (by the one baptizing) and the sanctifying properties he said were granted to the water. This could be a germ of the later development of the regenerative or justifying nature of the water.And accordingly it makes no difference whether a man be washed in a sea or a pool, a stream or a fount, a lake or a trough; nor is there any distinction between those whom John baptized in the Jordan and those whom Peter baptized in the Tiber, unless withal the eunuch whom Philip baptized in the midst of his journeys with chance water, derived (therefrom) more or less of salvation than others. [Acts 8:26-40] All waters, therefore, in virtue of the pristine privilege of their origin, do, after invocation of God, attain the sacramental power of sanctification; for the Spirit immediately supervenes from the heavens, and rests over the waters, sanctifying them from Himself; and being thus sanctified, they imbibe at the same time the power of sanctifying. Albeit the similitude may be admitted to be suitable to the simple act; that, since we are defiled by sins, as it were by dirt, we should be washed from those stains in waters. But as sins do not show themselves in our flesh (inasmuch as no one carries on his skin the spot of idolatry, or fornication, or fraud), so persons of that kind are foul in the spirit, which is the author of the sin; for the spirit is lord, the flesh servant. Yet they each mutually share the guilt: the spirit, on the ground of command; the flesh, of subservience. Therefore, after the waters have been in a manner endued with medicinal virtue through the intervention of the angel, the spirit is corporeally washed in the waters, and the flesh is in the same spiritually cleansed.Tertullian, On Baptism, Chapter 4
Tags: baptismseries-cw

Greetings from basically peaceful, still a little nervous Kiev, Ukraine.  OK, I am actually not in Kiev, I am in Ирпень, Irpin’, a “suburb” in a sense, to the north-northwest of downtown Kiev.  I will begin another day of church history lectures here in about an hour, but wanted to share some more of the presentations from this weekend.  Rich posted

James White, December 9, 2023December 9, 2023, Baptism, Debate, Exegesis, Federal Vision, Reformed Baptist Issues, Road Trip, The Dividing Line I’ve changed my travel plans home so I will be spending long hours in the saddle to get home a day earlier, so I wanted to finish up this response in case we are not able to sneak any programs on till late next week. Only about forty minutes today, but we finished up our review of Jared’s response article, focusing on atonement and election issues. Thanks for listening!
[embedded content]

And concerning baptism, baptize this way: Having first said all these things, baptize into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, (Matthew 28:19) in living water. But if you have not living water, baptize into other water; and if you can not in cold, in warm. But if you have not either, pour out water thrice upon the head into the name of Father and Son and Holy Spirit. But before the baptism let the baptizer fast, and the baptized, and whatever others can; but you shall order the baptized to fast one or two days before.The Didache, Chapter 7Many of the Church Fathers clearly stated that baptism is by full immersion into a body of water. Further, most of them were specific in that they practiced an immersion 3 times into the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit (later posts in this series will highlight this “thrice immersion”). The Didache states that baptism is “into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit, in living water”. Knowing what we know about thrice immersion, we can see that The Didache was most likely stating exactly what we read in it: baptism by immersion in living water. Whether it actually called for a thrice immersion could be debated as we do not see that it was the prescribed practice for the Church from the New Testament. Although I believe their argument would be a literalistic understanding of “into the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Spirit” – it would be an immersion once into each of the names of the Persons of the Trinity. It is also possible that the immersing of a person three times was a later modification to the practice of baptism and that it might even be assumed here since the pouring option is explicitly stated to be that of pouring the water upon the person three times.Continuing in this section of The Didache, we see that if and only if, there is not running or standing water enough available for immersion, then pouring (or effusion) is allowed. Note that this is intended to be an exception to the rule. I would argue that the vast majority of people involved in discussions about the mode of baptism today attend churches which are close to some type of “living water” and that this should not be the default practice for those denominations. Further, The Didache here echoes some later statements by Church Fathers that pouring should only be allowed for specific reasons – such as on one’s deathbed or sickbed. I also cite them later in this series.At this point I would like to note that, regarding pouring or sprinkling, what we have seen in the earliest Christian writings after the New Testament as only allowable if there is not enough water or if one is dying has been elevated to the preferred and normative practice of a large number of Protestant denominations today.This should cause one to pause.This is especially the case as we also will see in this series that some of the most important Reformers have even said that immersion is the Biblical mode as properly practiced, though they chose to not immerse either. Tradition can run quite deep, indeed!With regards to The Didache stating that baptism is for converts, this is also the way which I have seen other Reformed individuals argue. Though they would argue along the lines that it just isn’t dealing with infant baptism that was also being practiced at that time (again, there is no proof that it was). The argument is that it was a baptismal instruction only written for converts so it was not intended to discuss the baptism of infants. I would counter that it is just as plausible that, as we have the concession in The Didache that if there is not moving or still water only then is pouring acceptable, then we could also make the argument that since there is no concession made for fasting by proxy here that there was not a practice of infants (who cannot themselves be ordered to fast “for one or two days before“) being baptized. I would also argue that since it only describes the baptism of converts that perhaps the baptism of converts was the only baptism being practiced then – just as it was in the New Testament.
Tags: baptismseries-cw

Just a few brief comments on Catholicism at the start, then back to Hebrews and Jared’s article. We are, at least, getting into the nitty gritty of what the real issues are, so, I hope that is helpful. Tomorrow is a travel day for me, so I won’t be able to do another program until I am headed home next week, and those will be later in the day since I have 6+ hours to drive each day.
[embedded content]

Since pastor Waite no longer seems open to direct dialogue, yet has discussed about Dr. White on this recent radio broadcast, Dr. White gives a live response to the words of that King James Onlyist, highlighting misrepresentation, misunderstanding, and circular reasoning on pastor Waite’s part. Caller asks how a layman can deal with translation issues without knowing Biblical languages.

For the first hour we thought through the conclusion to a presentation from Dr. Jemar Tisby, considering standpoint epistemology, whiteness, etc. Then I looked at the “shocking” statements I made in the debate with Dr. Riddle on the TR. Ninety minutes. We will do another program, Lord willing, on Friday.

This morning’s regular edition of The Dividing Line should, Lord willing, make its appearance tomorrow, same time. It is physically impossible for only one person to do the program and run the electronics that are located in a different location, so, we will do our best to continue with our Ehrman response, possibly throw in some Ahmed Deedat material, etc.,