(Death, Heaven, Purgatory, Hell)
Rite of Christian Initiation for Adults
|
|
Infant Baptism
Fundamentalists often criticize the Catholic Church’s
practice of baptizing infants. According to them, baptism is for adults
and older children, because it is to be administered only after one has
undergone a "born again" experience—that is, after one has "accepted Jesus
Christ as his personal Lord and Savior." At the instant of acceptance,
when he is "born again," the adult becomes a Christian,
and his salvation is assured forever. Baptism follows, though it has no
actual salvific value. In fact, one who dies before being baptized, but
after "being saved," goes to heaven anyway.
As Fundamentalists see it, baptism is not a sacrament
(in the true sense of the word), but an ordinance. It does not in any way
convey the grace it symbolizes; rather, it is merely a public manifestation
of the person’s conversion. Since only an adult or older child can be converted,
baptism is inappropriate for infants or for children who have not yet reached
the age of reason (generally considered to be age seven). Most Fundamentalists
say that during the years before they reach the age of reason infants and
young children are automatically saved. Only once a person reaches the
age of reason does he need to "accept Jesus" in order to reach heaven.
Since the New Testament era, the Catholic Church
has always understood baptism differently, teaching that it is a sacrament
which accomplishes several things, the first of which is the remission
of sin, both original sin and actual sin—only original sin in the case
of infants and young children, since they are incapable of actual sin;
and both original and actual sin in the case of older persons.
Peter explained what happens at baptism when he
said, "Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ
for the forgiveness of your sins; and you shall receive the gift of the
Holy Spirit" (Acts 2:38). But he did not restrict this teaching to adults.
He added, "For the promise is to you and to your children and to
all that are far off, every one whom the Lord our God calls to him" (2:39).
We also read: "Rise and be baptized, and wash away your sins, calling on
his name" (Acts 22:16). These commands are universal, not restricted to
adults. Further, these commands make clear the necessary connection between
baptism and salvation, a
connection explicitly stated in 1 Peter 3:21:
"Baptism . . . now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but
as an appeal to God for a clear conscience, through the resurrection of
Jesus Christ."
Christ Calls All to Baptism
Although Fundamentalists are the most recent critics
of infant baptism, opposition to infant baptism is not a new phenomenon.
In the Middle Ages, some groups developed that rejected infant baptism,
e.g., the Waldenses and Catharists. Later, the Anabaptists ("re-baptizers")
echoed them, claiming that infants are incapable of being baptized validly.
But the historic Christian Church has always held that Christ’s law applies
to infants as well as adults, for Jesus said that no one can enter heaven
unless he has been born again of water and the Holy Spirit (John 3:5).
His words can be taken to apply to anyone capable of belonging to
his kingdom. He asserted such even for children: "Let the children
come to me, and do not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of
heaven" (Matt. 19:14).
More detail is given in Luke’s account of this
event, which reads: "Now they were bringing even infants to him that he
might touch them; and when the disciples saw it, they rebuked them. But
Jesus called them to him, saying, ‘Let the children come to me, and do
not hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God’" (Luke 18:15–16).
Now Fundamentalists say this event does not apply
to young children or infants since it implies the children to which Christ
was referring were able to approach him on their own. (Older translations
have, "Suffer the little children to come unto me," which seems to suggest
they could do so under their own power.) Fundamentalists conclude the passage
refers only to children old enough to walk, and, presumably, capable of
sinning. But the text in Luke 18:15 says, "Now they were bringing even
infants to him" (Greek, Prosepheron de auto kai ta brepha).
The Greek word brepha means "infants"—children who are quite unable
to approach Christ on their own and who could not possibly make a conscious
decision to "accept Jesus as their personal Lord
and Savior." And that is precisely the problem. Fundamentalists refuse
to permit the baptism of infants and young children, because they are not
yet capable of making such a conscious act. But notice what Jesus said:
"to such as these [referring to the infants and children who had been brought
to him by their mothers] belongs the kingdom of heaven." The Lord did not
require them to make a conscious decision. He says that they are precisely
the kind of people who can come to him and receive the kingdom.
So on what basis, Fundamentalists should be asked, can infants and young
children be excluded from the sacrament of baptism? If Jesus said "let
them come unto me," who are we to say "no," and withhold baptism from them?
In Place of Circumcision
Furthermore, Paul notes that baptism has replaced
circumcision (Col. 2:11–12). In that passage, he refers to baptism as "the
circumcision of Christ" and "the circumcision made without hands." Of course,
usually only infants were circumcised under the Old Law; circumcision of
adults was rare, since there were few converts to Judaism. If Paul meant
to exclude infants, he would not have chosen circumcision as a parallel
for baptism.
This comparison between who could receive baptism
and circumcision is an appropriate one. In the Old Testament, if a man
wanted to become a Jew, he had to believe in the God of Israel and be circumcised.
In the New Testament, if one wants to become a Christian, one must believe
in God and Jesus and be baptized. In the Old Testament, those born into
Jewish households could be circumcised in anticipation of the Jewish faith
in which they would be raised. Thus in the New Testament, those born in
Christian households can be baptized in anticipation of the Christian faith
in which they will be raised. The pattern is the same: If one is an adult,
one must have faith before receiving the rite of membership; if one is
a child too young to have faith, one may be given the rite of membership
in the knowledge that one will be raised in the faith. This is the basis
of Paul’s reference to baptism as "the circumcision of Christ"—that is,
the Christian equivalent of circumcision.
Were Only Adults Baptized?
Fundamentalists are reluctant to admit that the
Bible nowhere says baptism is to be restricted to adults, but when pressed,
they will. They just conclude that is what it should be taken as meaning,
even if the text does not explicitly support such a view. Naturally enough,
the people whose baptisms we read about in Scripture (and few are individually
identified) are adults, because they were converted as adults. This makes
sense, because Christianity was just beginning—there were no "cradle Christians,"
people brought up from childhood in Christian homes.
Even in the books of the New Testament that were
written later in the first century, during the time when children were
raised in the first Christian homes, we never—not even once—find an example
of a child raised in a Christian home who is baptized only upon making
a "decision for Christ." Rather, it is always assumed that the children
of Christian homes are already Christians, that they have already been
"baptized into Christ" (Rom. 6:3). If infant baptism were not the rule,
then we should have references to the children of Christian parents joining
the Church only after they had come to the age of reason, and there are
no such records in the Bible.
Specific Biblical References?
But, one might ask, does the Bible ever say that
infants or young children can be baptized? The indications are clear. In
the New Testament we read that Lydia was converted by Paul’s preaching
and that "She was baptized, with her household" (Acts 16:15). The Philippian
jailer whom Paul and Silas had converted to the faith was baptized that
night along with his household. We are told that "the same hour of the
night . . . he was baptized, with all his family" (Acts 16:33). And in
his greetings to the Corinthians, Paul recalled that, "I did baptize also
the household of Stephanas" (1 Cor. 1:16).
In all these cases, whole households or families
were baptized. This means more than just the spouse; the children too were
included. If the text of Acts referred simply to the Philippian jailer
and his wife, then we would read that "he and his wife were baptized,"
but we do not. Thus his children must have been baptized as well. The same
applies to the other cases of household baptism in Scripture.
Granted, we do not know the exact age of the children;
they may have been past the age of reason, rather than infants. Then again,
they could have been babes in arms. More probably, there were both younger
and older children. Certainly there were children younger than the age
of reason in some of the households that were baptized, especially if one
considers that society at this time had no reliable form of birth control.
Furthermore, given the New Testament pattern of household baptism, if there
were to be exceptions to this rule (such as infants), they would be explicit.
Catholics From the First
The present Catholic attitude accords perfectly
with early Christian practices. Origen, for instance, wrote in the third
century that "according to the usage of the Church, baptism is given even
to infants" (Holilies on Leviticus, 8:3:11 [A.D. 244]). The Council
of Carthage, in 253, condemned the opinion that baptism should be withheld
from infants until the eighth day after birth. Later, Augustine taught,
"The custom of Mother Church in baptizing infants is certainly not to be
scorned . . . nor is it to be believed that its tradition is anything except
apostolic" (Literal Interpretation of Genesis 10:23:39 [A.D. 408]).
No Cry of "Invention!"
None of the Fathers or councils of the Church was
claiming that the practice was contrary to Scripture or tradition. They
agreed that the practice of baptizing infants was the customary and appropriate
practice since the days of the early Church; the only uncertainty seemed
to be when—exactly—an infant should be baptized. Further evidence that
infant baptism was the accepted practice in the early Church is the fact
that if infant baptism had been opposed to the religious practices of the
first believers, why do we have no record of early Christian writers condemning
it?
But Fundamentalists try to ignore the historical
writings from the early Church which clearly indicate the legitimacy of
infant baptism. They attempt to sidestep appeals to history by saying baptism
requires faith and, since children are incapable of having faith, they
cannot be baptized. It is true that Christ prescribed instruction and actual
faith for adult converts (Matt. 28:19–20), but his general law on the necessity
of baptism (John 3:5) puts no restriction on the subjects of baptism. Although
infants are included in the law he establishes, requirements of that law
that are impossible to meet because of their age are not applicable to
them. They cannot be expected to be instructed and have faith when they
are incapable of receiving instruction or manifesting faith. The same was
true of circumcision; faith in the Lord was necessary for an adult convert
to receive it, but it was not necessary for the children of believers.
Furthermore, the Bible never says, "Faith in Christ
is necessary for salvation except for infants"; it simply says, "Faith
in Christ is necessary for salvation." Yet Fundamentalists must admit there
is an exception for infants unless they wish to condemn instantaneously
all infants to hell. Therefore, the Fundamentalist himself makes an exception
for infants regarding the necessity of faith for salvation. He can thus
scarcely criticize the Catholic for making the exact same exception for
baptism, especially if, as Catholics believe, baptism is an instrument
of salvation.
It becomes apparent, then, that the Fundamentalist
position on infant baptism is not really a consequence of the Bible’s strictures,
but of the demands of Fundamentalism’s idea of salvation. In reality, the
Bible indicates that infants are to be baptized, that they too are meant
to inherit the kingdom of heaven. Further, the witness of the earliest
Christian practices and writings must once and for all silence those who
criticize the Catholic Church’s teaching on infant baptism. The Catholic
Church is merely continuing the tradition established by the first Christians,
who heeded the words of Christ: "Let the children come to me, and do not
hinder them; for to such belongs the kingdom of God" (Luke 18:16).
NIHIL OBSTAT:
I have concluded that the materials
presented in this work are free of doctrinal or moral errors.
Bernadeane Carr, STL, Censor Librorum, August 10, 2004
IMPRIMATUR:
In accord with 1983 CIC 827
permission to publish this work is hereby granted.
+Robert H. Brom, Bishop of San Diego, August 10, 2004