BAPTIZING INFANTS--OR NOT?
Dear Friend of Catholic Answers:
This week marks yet another anniversary of Roe v. Wade. It may be opportune to look at the sacrament that is conferred on many newborns but not on those who are not permitted to be born.
Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and some Protestants baptize children shortly after birth, understanding baptism to be the sacrament that initiates one into Christianity. Fundamentalists and Evangelicals oppose this practice. They restrict baptism to adults, saying that baptism is reserved for those who have "accepted Jesus Christ as their personal Lord and Savior."
No infant is capable of making such an affirmation; for that matter, no child below the age of reason is capable of doing so. This implies, to Fundamentalists and Evangelicals, that baptism may be conferred only on adults or older children.
More than just timing is involved. Catholics, Eastern Orthodox, and some Protestant believe that baptism washes away the stain of original sin and that it is through baptism that grace first enters the new Christian's soul. Catholics call this sanctifying (or habitual) grace. Other Christians may use other terms, but the general sense is the same.
In the thinking of all these faiths, baptism regenerates. It makes a real change in the recipient, whether he is an infant or an adult. But "Bible Christians" think otherwise.
In their eyes baptism is not regenerative; it is symbolic only. It does not effect a real change in the soul. It exists not to bring grace to the new Christian (this is done through "accepting Christ") but to indicate to other Christians and to the world that this person now is a member of the church established by Christ.
Let's look at a few verses. In John 3:5 Jesus says that only the baptized can enter heaven. His words can be taken to apply to anyone capable of having a right to his kingdom. He asserted just such a right for children: "Let the children be, do not keep them back from me; the kingdom of heaven belongs to such as these (Matt. 19:14).
If heaven belongs to children--if they are eligible to go there while not yet adults--then they must be able to be baptized.
Not quite, say Fundamentalists and Evangelicals. This applies only to older children, those capable of making a decision for Jesus. In Catholic parlance, it applies only to children over the age of reason. Our Lord's comments do not apply to infants, say "Bible Christians."
This is a bit of a stretch. After all, we are told that "Then they brought little children to him" (Luke 18:15). The implication is children so little that they were not able to come to Jesus on their own. Infants? Perhaps, although the text is not explicit, but surely children in their early years, before the age of reason (about age seven).
Many Christian practices are prefigured in the Old Testament. Another way to say that is that many Old Testament practices are perfected in the New. In the Old dispensation the entry into the Jewish community was through circumcision, which was given mainly to infants. In the New dispensation the requirement for circumcision was removed, and baptism replaced the old practice (Col. 2:11-12).
This suggests that baptism can be given to infants. If our Lord's intention had been that baptism should be restricted to adults, then why didn't Paul, in writing to the Colossians, mention that exclusion?
It would have been a big change, transitioning from a situation in which an introductory rite could be given to infants to one in which infants were excluded from the replacement rite. But Paul was quite silent about any such exclusion.
In fact, his other doings imply there was no such exclusion. In Acts 16:15 we see that Lydia was converted by Paul's preaching, and "She was baptized, with all her household." What constituted her household? Probably her husband, her servants, and, of course, her children. No mention is made of the ages of any children, but there well may have been very young ones in the household.
A similar situation applied when Paul and Silas converted their jailer. "Without delay he and all his were baptized" (Acts 16:33). It is unlikely that a lowly jailer would have had any servants, but he probably had a wife and children. The phrase "and all his" may indicate the kind of possessory attitude a man has toward his very young children but not toward his older children.
A similar situation is reported when Paul says, "I baptized the household of Stephanas" (1 Cor. 1:16). Young children are implied.
Whatever one may wish to read into these situations today, it's clear that the first Christians understood them to be baptisms that included infants. In the third century Origen wrote, "The Church received from the apostles the tradition of giving baptism also to infants."
In 252 the Council of Carthage condemned the opinion that baptism should be withheld from infants until the eighth day after their birth. The implication was that baptizing newborns was the norm.
A bit earlier, around 215, St. Hippolytus of Rome said, "Baptize first the children; and if they can speak for themselves, let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents or other relatives speak for them."
What is absent from early Christian writings is any argument that baptism should be restricted to adults or even to older children. In fact, the bias against baptizing young children arose only in post-Reformation times.
As I said, many Protestants believe in the regenerative power of baptism, but Fundamentalists and Evangelicals do not. Historically, they are odd men out.
p.s., If you have a comment about anything appearing in this E-Letter, please do not hit your Reply button. Instead, go to Catholic Answers' new discussion forums at:
http://forums.catholic.com
where you may post your comment in the forum dedicated to the E-Letter. You will find a thread devoted to this issue of the E-Letter. Feel free to add your comment in the form of a reply to that thread.
|
Discuss
Index
Prior issue
Next issue
Sign up
