Reader Questions Answered –



More on Infants Who Die without Baptism
More Reader Questions


Are you implying that infant baptism ensures their salvation?  Infants have no choice or voice in the matter.  We cannot choose for them. (9/6/2008)



A few weeks ago, I tossed this into a study tip: “And while I’m on the topic of infant baptism, note that Lydia’s “entire household” was baptized along with her.  Those denominations that do not accept infant baptism have not yet convinced me that there were wealthy households in the Middle East with no infants present.” This is the comment that prompted the current question.

Christians argue too much about baptism.  Believer’s baptism or infant baptism?  Sprinkle or dunk?  Is a UMC baptism good in churches everywhere? (No.)  Are the baptisms of churches everywhere good in the UMC? (Yes, except for baptisms by a couple of specific denominations.)  Do you have to be baptized to take communion?  To be married?  The New Testament is actually clear on only one thing:  be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ (Acts 10:44-48). Let’s all agree on that, because after that, things get hazy. Jesus said remarkably little about baptism, so what we have to do is look at the practice of the disciples and the early church.

First, let me answer the question directly: No, infant baptism does not ensure their salvation. Adult baptism does not ensure salvation, either! Baptism is a sign of salvation, not a cause. “Baptism is an outward and visible sign of an inward and spiritual grace given unto us,” according to a Christian catechism that is at least as old as the fourth century. A hypocritical lying con man could ask for baptism in order, say, to join a church full of rich people, and far from ensuring salvation, it might be added to the list of his sins.

(Now, United Methodists also believe that baptism is a means of grace, so in accepting baptism from any motive whatsoever, the con man is in danger of allowing the Holy Spirit to convert him, but that’s not the question here.)

The Range of Denominational Positions on Infant Baptism

There has not been a consistent position of the Church on infant baptism since the Reformation. At one end of the spectrum, some have held that an unbaptized child is condemned, if not to hell, at least to purgatory.  Even John Wesley, in his Treatise on Baptism, was in favor of infant baptism because it washes away original sin.  In his words, “If infants are guilty of original sin [which he had established in a previous paragraph], then they are proper subjects of baptism; seeing, in the ordinary way, they cannot be saved, unless this be washed away by baptism.”  (Bold italics added.)  It is my understanding that this also used to be the position of the Catholic churches.  It may still be the position of some denominations today; I don’t know.

As I understand it, the current position of the Roman Catholic Church is that they don’t know.  The Catechism of the Catholic Church (No. 1261) says “As regards children who have died without Baptism, the Church can only entrust them to the mercy of God, as she does in her funeral rites for them. Indeed, the great mercy of God who desires that all men should be saved, and Jesus’ tenderness toward children which caused him to say: ‘Let the children come to me, do not hinder them,’ allow us to hope that there is a way of salvation for children who have died without Baptism. All the more urgent is the Church’s call not to prevent little children coming to Christ through the gift of holy Baptism.” (Bold italics added.) 

The position of the United Methodist Church today is different from Wesley’s.  The appropriate age for baptism is “as soon as possible and practical,” according to The Rev. Taylor Burton-Edwards, Director of Worship Resources, General Board of Discipleship, because “Baptism is, among other things, incorporation into the body of Christ.”  However, “The baptism of infants is properly understood and valued if the child is loved and nurtured by the faithful worshiping church and by the child’s own family. If a parent or sponsor (godparent) cannot or will not nurture the child in the faith, then baptism is to be postponed until Christian nurture is available. A child who dies without being baptized is received into the love and presence of God because the Spirit has worked in that child to bestow saving grace. If a child has been baptized but her or his family or sponsors do not faithfully nurture the child in the faith, the congregation has a particular responsibility for incorporating the child into its life.” (Bold italics added.)  This UMC position is quoted from By Water & The Spirit. 

According to The Rev. David L. Hunter, retired American Baptist minister, most denominations with “Baptist” in the name hold to the historic Baptist position of believer’s baptism.  Children who die before they have reached the “age of accountability,” that is, before they are old enough to make their own profession of faith, automatically go to heaven.  The age of accountability is typically around 12 or 13; however, pastors in many Baptist denominations will baptize a younger child who clearly understands its sinful nature and the significance of baptism.  The Rev. Hunter baptized one child at age eight.

At the other end of the spectrum, the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints allows baptism by proxy after a person has died.  If the person chooses to accept that baptism (presumably at that point having complete knowledge of the situation!), then he or she can be saved.  The person is also free to reject the baptism.  This practice is based in part on Paul’s saying in 1 Corinthians 15:29, “Else what shall they do which are baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all, why are they then baptized for the dead?”

Regina’s Position on What the Scripture Says About Infant Baptism

Here are the scriptures that are pertinent to infant baptism:
There is no scripture stating explicitly that infants were excluded from baptism. I find it difficult to believe that Luke and Paul would have said “the household,” much less “all the household,” if what they really meant was, “all the household except for the children.” I find it extremely difficult to believe that a first-century “household” did not include children. I find it impossible to believe that Jesus didn’t mean what he said about allowing little children to come to him.

Conclusion: All I know for sure is that several “households” are baptized in the NT, but I can’t imagine a bunch of first-century households with no infants. I hold with the UMC position that infants don’t need salvation, they just go straight to heaven if they die, baptized or not.  Older children need to make their own decision and be confirmed, yes, but they don’t need to be re-baptized. 

In light of the scriptures cited above, I think the burden of proof is on those who are against infant baptism. Note that I am not against believer’s baptism; I’m just against being against infant baptism.
 

Copyright 2008, 2013 Regina L. Hunter