"The Acts of the Apostles provides evidence that Christian proclamation was engaged from the very first with the philosophical currents of the time. In Athens, we read, Saint Paul entered into discussion with 'certain Epicurean and Stoic philosophers' (17:18); and exegetical analysis of his speech at the Areopagus has revealed frequent allusions to popular beliefs deriving for the most part from Stoicism. This is by no means accidental. If pagans were to understand them, the first Christians could not refer only to 'Moses and the prophets' when they spoke. They had to point as well to natural knowledge of God and to the voice of conscience in every human being (cf. Rom 1:19-21; 2:14-15; Acts 14:16-17). Since in pagan religion this natural knowledge had lapsed into idolatry (cf. Rom 1:21-32), the Apostle judged it wiser in his speech to make the link with the thinking of the philosophers, who had always set in opposition to the myths and mystery cults notions more respectful of divine transcendence." -- Pope St. John Paul II, Fides et Ratio

Thursday, June 23, 2022

A Brief Argument on Infant Baptism

Some Protestants reject the legitimacy of infant baptism by holding that baptism, being an outward sign of salvation, must be received with full, conscious consent, and this is because salvation itself can only be received by making an explicit act of faith (which requires full, conscious consent), no exceptions. This view is referred to in certain Protestant circles as "believer's baptism." Since, therefore, infants are neither capable of giving full, conscious consent nor, a fortiori, making an explicit act of faith, it follows that infant baptism is invalid. The trouble with this reasoning, aside from the fact that baptism is not merely an outward sign but rather also the instrumental cause of salvation, is that it entails that infants cannot be saved, which is in utter contradiction to the teaching of Jesus (cf. Luke 18:15-16). The Protestant is here making two claims which logically entail the conclusion that salvation is impossible for infants:
  1. An explicit act of faith is necessary for salvation.
  2. Infants are not capable of making an explicit act of faith.
  3. Therefore, infants cannot be saved.
Since the conclusion is false, one of the premises must be false. The second premise is obviously true since infants simply do not have the level of cognitive development needed to make an explicit act of faith. Hence, our culprit is the first premise. But the Protestant argument against infant baptism presently under consideration relies on this premise. Hence, the present argument against infant baptism is unsound. Still, it cannot be denied that faith is necessary for salvation (cf. Hebrews 11:6), and an explicit act of faith would seem to be necessary for those who are able to make it (cf. Romans 10:9). So, the following proposition seems true:
1* An explicit act of faith is necessary for salvation for those who are able to make such an act.
Since infants are not capable of making an explicit act of faith, this modified thesis does not preclude infants from being saved. Now, since baptism is the sacrament of salvation (cf. John 3:5, Acts 2:38; 22:16, Titus 3:5, 1 Peter 3:21), and infants can be saved and are capable of being baptized, it follows that infants validly can (and should) be baptized. With respect to the role of faith in infant baptism, the Tradition of the Church holds that the baptism in such a case is made efficacious by the faith of the Church, especially that of the minister of the sacrament and the parents or guardians of the infant. Furthermore, there is precedent in Scripture for people exercising faith on behalf of another resulting in healing and even the forgiveness of sins (cf. Matthew 8:5-13, Mark 2:1-5, Luke 7:1-10). When the infant comes of age, of course, then he will have to make an explicit act of faith for himself.



St. Cyprian:

If, in the case of the worst sinners and of those who formerly sinned much against God, when afterwards they believe, the remission of their sins is granted and no one is held back from Baptism and grace, how much more, then, should an infant not be held back, who, having but recently been born, has done no sin, except that, born of the flesh according to Adam, he has contracted the contagion of that old death from his first being born. For this very reason does he approach more easily to receive the remission of sins: because the sins forgiven him are not his own but those of another (Letter of Cyprian and of his Colleagues in Council to the Number of Sixty-Six: to Fidus, A.D. 251/252). 

St. Irenaeus:

He came to save all through Himself, – all, I say, who through Him are reborn in God, – infants, and children, and youths and old men. Therefore He passed through every age, becoming an infant for infants, sanctifying infants… (Against Heresies, A.D. 180/199).

St. Hippolytus of Rome:

Baptize first the children; and if they can speak for themselves, let them do so. Otherwise, let their parents and relatives speak for them (The Apostolic Tradition, ca. A.D. 215).

Origen of Alexandria:

The Church received from the Apostles the tradition of giving Baptism even to infants. For the Apostles, to whom were committed the secrets of divine mysteries, knew that there is in everyone the innate stains of sin, which must be washed away through water and the Spirit (Commentaries on Romans, post A.D. 244).

St. Augustine:

For whether it be a newborn infant or a decrepit old man—since no one should be barred from baptism—just so, there is no one who does not die to sin in baptism. Infants die to original sin only; adults, to all those sins which they have added, through their evil living, to the burden they brought with them at birth (Enchiridion, Ch. XIII, para. 43, A.D. 420).


No comments:

Post a Comment

God as a Hypothesis: A Response to Edward Feser

On his blog, Edward Feser argues that it is illegitimate to think of God as a hypothesis ( Edward Feser: Is God’s existence a “hypothesis”?...