The Debate Concerning Infant Baptism
The Debate Concerning Infant Baptism
The second major sacrament which is virtually universally recognized throughout Christianity is baptism. Perhaps the most important controversy to center upon this sacrament is whether it is legitimate to baptize infants – and, if so, what theological justification may be provided for the practice. It is not clear whether the early church baptized infants. The New Testament includes no specific references to the baptism of infants. However, it does not explicitly forbid the practice, and there are also a number of passages which could be interpreted as condoning it – for example, references to the baptizing of entire households (which would probably have included infants) – at several points (Acts 16: 15, 33; 1 Corinthians 1: 16). Paul treats baptism as a spiritual counterpart to circumcision (Colossians 2: 11–12), suggesting that the parallel may extend to its application to infants.
The practice of baptizing infants of Christian parents – often referred to as “paedobaptism” – appears to have been a response to a number of pressures. It is possible that the parallel with the Jewish rite of circumcision led Christians to devise an equivalent rite of passage for Christian infants. More generally, there seems to have been a pastoral need for Christian parents to celebrate the birth of a child within a believing household. Infant baptism may well have had its origins partly in response to this concern. However, it must be stressed that there is genuine uncertainty concerning both the historical origins and the social or theological causes of the practice.
What can be said is that the practice had become normal, if not universal, by the second or third century, and would exercise considerable influence over a major theological debate: the Pelagian controversy. In the third century, Origen treated infant baptism as a universal practice which he justified on the basis of a universal human need for the grace of Christ. A similar argument would later be deployed by Augustine: in that Christ is the savior of all, it follows that all – including infants – require redemption, which baptism confers, at least in part. Opposition to the practice can be seen in the writings of Tertullian, who argued that the baptism of children should be deferred until such time as they “know Christ.”
In more recent times, infant baptism has been subjected to intense negative scrutiny in the writings of Karl Barth (1886–1968), who directed three major lines of criticism against the practice, as follows:
While all of Barth's arguments can be countered, they are an impressive witness to a continuing unease within at least some quarters of the mainstream churches over the potential abuse of the practice of infant baptism.
Three major approaches to the question of infant baptism can be discerned within the Christian tradition. In what follows, we shall consider these individually.
Infant Baptism Remits the Guilt of Original Sin
This position owes its origins to Cyprian of Carthage, who declared that infant baptism procured remission of both sinful acts and original sin. The final steps in the theological justification of the practice stem from Augustine of Hippo, in his response to the issues surrounding the Pelagian controversy. Had not the creed laid down that there was “one baptism for the forgiveness of sins?” It therefore followed that infant baptism remitted original sin.
This raised a question of potential difficulty. If original sin was remitted by baptism, why did the infants in question behave in a sinful manner in later life? Augustine met this objection by distinguishing between the guilt and the disease of original sin (see pp. 331–2). Baptism remitted the guilt of original sin but did nothing to get rid of its effects, which could only be eliminated by the continuing work of grace within the believer.
One major implication of this approach relates to the fate of those who die without being baptized, whether in infancy or later in life. If baptism remits the guilt of original sin, people who die without being baptized remain guilty. So what happens to them? Augustine's position demands that such people cannot be saved. Augustine himself certainly held to this belief, and argued forcefully that unbaptized infants were condemned to eternal damnation. However, he conceded that such infants would not have as unpleasant a time in hell as those who lived to adulthood and committed actual sins. Considerations such as these considerably increased apprehension over the idea of hell, as we shall see later (pp. 439–41).
Nevertheless, Augustine's position was modified in the light of popular pressure, apparently based upon a belief that his doctrine was unjust. Peter Lombard argued that unbaptized infants receive only “the penalty of being condemned” and do not receive the more painful “penalty of the senses.” Although they are condemned, that condemnation does not include the experience of the physical pain of hell. This idea is often referred to as “limbo” (from the Latin limbus, “edge” or “boundary”), although this has never become part of the official teaching of any Christian body and is a somewhat vague notion. It is reflected in the description of hell given by Dante Alighieri (1265–1321), which we shall consider later (p. 431). In 2007, the International Theological Commission (a body originally commissioned by Paul VI) reported on the notion of “limbo.” While noting that it remained “a possible theological opinion,” it emphasized that there are “strong grounds for hope that God will save infants when we have not been able to do for them what we would have wished to do, namely, to baptize them into the faith and life of the Church.”
Infant Baptism is Grounded in God's Covenant with the Church
Earlier, we noted how many theologians interpret sacraments as concerned with the affirmation of belonging to a community (see pp. 390–1). A series of Protestant writers have sought to justify the practice of infant baptism by seeing it as a sign of the covenant between God and his people. The baptism of infants inside the church is regarded as a direct counterpart to the Jewish rite of circumcision.
The origins of this approach are to be found with Zwingli. In common with some patristic theologians, particularly within the eastern church, Zwingli regarded the idea of “original guilt” with considerable skepticism. How could an infant be said to be guilty of anything? Guilt implied a degree of moral responsibility which was quite lacking in infants. By rejecting the Augustinian notion of “original guilt,” Zwingli found himself temporarily without any justification for the practice of infant baptism – a practice which he regarded as justified, on the basis of the New Testament. So how was this practice to be justified theoretically?
Zwingli found his answer in the Old Testament, which stipulated that male infants born within the bounds of Israel should have an outward sign of their membership of the people of God. The outward sign in question was circumcision – that is, the removal of the foreskin. Infant baptism was thus to be seen as analogous to circumcision – a sign of belonging to a covenant community (see p. 391). Zwingli argued that the more inclusive and gentle character of Christianity was publicly affirmed by infant baptism. The more inclusive character of Christianity was affirmed by the baptism of both male and female infants; Judaism, in contrast, recognized only the marking of male infants. The more gentle character of the gospel was publicly demonstrated by the absence of pain or the shedding of blood in the sacrament. Christ suffered – in being circumcised himself in addition to his death on the cross – in order that his people need not suffer in this manner.
Infant Baptism is Unjustified
The rise of the radical Reformation in the sixteenth century, and subsequently of Baptist churches in England during the seventeenth century, witnessed a rejection of the traditional practice of baptizing infants. Baptism was to be administered only when an individual showed signs of grace, repentance, or faith. The silence of the New Testament on the matter is to be taken as indicating that there is no biblical warrant for infant baptism whatsoever.
In part, this position rests upon a particular understanding of the function of sacraments in general and baptism in particular. A long-standing debate within the Christian tradition centers on whether sacraments are causative or declarative. In other words, does baptism cause forgiveness of sin? Or does it signify or declare that this forgiveness has already taken place? The practice of “believer's baptism” rests upon the assumption that baptism represents the public declaration of faith upon the part of a converted individual. Conversion has already occurred; baptism represents the public declaration that this has taken place.
There are parallels between this Baptist position and that of Zwingli, noted above; where they differ is in their interpretation of the event which baptism publicly declares. Zwingli understands the event in question to be birth into a believing community; Baptist writers generally understand it to be the dawn of a personal faith in the life of an individual.
This position is set out succinctly by Benajah Harvey Carroll (1843–1914), a leading figure in Southern Baptist life in the state of Texas. For baptism to be valid, Carroll argued, four requirements must be met:
This represents a slight development of the criteria laid down by James Robinson Graves (1820–93), probably the most significant intellectual force in the early period of the Southern Baptist Convention. Graves had identified three essential characteristics of baptism: the proper subject (a believing Christian); a proper mode, which is total immersion and baptism in the name of the Trinity; and a proper administrator, who must be “an immersed believer, acting under the authority of a gospel church.”
We have now considered the major theological aspects of the life of the Christian church, including the question of how the church and its sacraments relate to the gospel. However, a cluster of new questions now awaits us. How does the Christian community relate to other communities outside the Christian faith? This question has become of considerable importance as western society acknowledges its multicultural nature. How does the Christian church understand its relationship to non-Christian religions? We shall consider such issues in Chapter 17.