No. 10 It seems that quite a lot of Christians think that infant baptism is a wrong practice�I�ve had many friends in my neighborhood question me about it. They ask: � Why do you baptize infants, since they cannot believe?� They seem to be under the impression that it is impossible for a baby to have faith in Jesus. How would you have me answer that? >>PROFESSOR ROLAND ZIEGLER: Well, Nick, I think that is really one of the main reasons people object to infant baptism. That they say: Well, you know, if you baptize infants it's kind of magical rite or it doesn't mean anything or you destroy the centrality of faith. You end up again with some kind of infused thing that bypasses the mind of a baby. So since babies can't believe, since the promise of the Gospel can only be apprehended by faith, therefore you have to wait until a person can believe. I think dogmatically speaking, that is the best argument against infant baptism. Let's -- before we answer that question, let's look a little bit broader at the whole issue of infant baptism. There are several things to be considered on the question of infant baptism. First the historical question: Did the early church practice infant baptism or not? Is it a later custom that came in when the church was already somewhat corrupted from the first pristine era? Now, we have to admit that the question if infants should be baptized cannot be definitely answered by the historical evidence. The New Testament neither explicitly mandates nor rejects the practice to baptize also infant children. That's what you'll often hear from Baptist people, "Well, the New Testament never says 'You shall baptize infants.'" That's right. It also never, ever says, "You shall not baptize infants." So I mean the argument cuts both ways. It leaves us at somewhat of a stalemate. What are the arguments in favor or against? The historic question is: Did the church during the New Testament times baptize infants? And at the center of the controversy there is what does it mean when in Acts it says, "He was baptized with his entire house, the famous ***icus formli"? Icus formli is the Greek word for house. The house of a person is of course not the building. Okay? They did not baptize structures of wood and stone. But it means the household. Which we don't really have anymore. Well, we have the word household. But we don't say, "I and my house" except of course if you have a Bible verse like "I and my house will serve the Lord." But we don't use that. That's about it. But in the New Testament the house was all the people that belonged to a family. This was not the time of a small family: Mother, father, children or single parent maybe and a child. But this was the extended family. Not only family but you had also servants or slaves, maybe even employees. So the house was a unit of people that were related by kinship and also by employer/employee relationship or by work you can say. Well, slaves were not quite employed. But okay. You get the point. So if the entire house is baptized includes that not only the head of the house but also the wife the children and maybe the slaves were all baptized. They all followed the decision of the head of the house. The head of the house really determined what was going on. The possibility that the households included children cannot be denied because children were by definition part of an ***icus. And you have to see also that a childless couple would be the exception in the time of the New Testament. The families were relatively large and extended. That's why Dr. Scare in his book on baptism says minimally it must be said by the New Testament from a historical perspective does not categorically rule out the baptism of infants and children from the laws of historical probability. The arguments lean with a vengeance in the opposite direction. Okay. So in the New Testament there is some historical evidence. But not conclusive in any way. If the New Testament church originally did not practice infant baptism, then it is astonishing that there is no trace of any discussion of such arrival of massive innovation in the early church. You have to realize that if you accept the Baptist's viewpoint that an infant baptism is no baptism at all, it's nothing, it's an empty thing and it's a total corruption of what Christianity is all about, it's quite amazing that in the time of Tertalion, the guy we encountered when we talked about the word sacrament -- in the time of Tertalion infant baptism seems to have been a widespread custom. Tertalion, by the way, opposed it. So even if you say it was an innovation, the question is: Why was it accepted so smoothly? I mean, if you just look at it from a historical perspective, if it's the totally alien to something, then it is normally not accepted smoothly. There must be some connections. What was the bridge, so to speak? And in a Baptistic theology, there is no bridge. It's just -- it's just kind of deterioration. It's a distortion. Now, one of my students said -- used a rather facetious argument once. He said: Well, the New Testament also doesn't tell us that women were baptized. Does that mean we shouldn't baptize women? Okay. I think that's more for kind of, you know, if you got in an argument to get some time and shake up your opponent, it's more a rhetorical argument maybe than a good theological or historical argument. But at least it should bring somebody to pause and think about his or her approach. If historically it can be made lightly that there was infant baptism but it can't be proven conclusively, that means we have to argue dogmatically. What in the New Testament actually speaks in favor or against the baptism of infants? So we have to legitimize baptism dogmatically. The other point is since infant baptism was the universal custom in the church only challenged since the 16th Century, those who deemed this to be wrong bear the burden of proof. That might seem arbitrary. But that's one of the things we -- one of the things -- Lutherans at least historically believed Christ strongly. If you want to change something, you bear the burden of proof. The status quo has history for itself. And you have to make a conclusive case from Scripture. Now, what does dogmatically speak in favor of infant baptism? In favor of infant baptism speaks the inclusion of children into the kingdom of heaven by Jesus. Jesus puts a child, a ***pidean, in the middle of the disciples as an example to discipleship and explicitly talks about the faith of the little ones in Matthew 18:1 following. Of course we don't know how old the child is. But it was pretty little. The blessing of the children is also one of those pieces that is very important. We still use it in the baptismal liturgy. Yes, it doesn't talk about baptism. That is true. But it shows that children -- and Luke uses the term ***brethae, which means babies or very small children in classical Greek, can even mean the fetus are not excluded from the kingdom of heaven. Since baptism is according to the unanimous teaching of the New Testament part of the incorporation into the kingdom of heaven after Pentecost, the liturgical usage of this pericope of baptism of infants into the Lutheran Church is justified. The question here is: Are children included in the kingdom of heaven? And Jesus says yes, such is the kingdom of heaven. Okay. Now, before Easter how are people included in the kingdom of heaven? Well, through the call of Jesus. The apostles become representatives through the preaching of Jesus which they heed. In the New Testament time -- in the New Testament age, that is after Christ's resurrection, it is baptism. Mark 10, therefore, is not followed when you institute some kind of a children's blessing. That's not the point. Jesus doesn't say, "And therefore Thou shall bless these children, too." He says, "Such is the kingdom of heaven." How do the children get that? Well, baptism saves you now says Peter. So the children have to be incorporated into the kingdom of heaven. And that is done through baptism. Also Matthew 28 is a universal command. All peoples. And that does not exclude the children. He doesn't say "And make into disciples all nations except of course the children who cannot become disciples." In Acts Jesus -- Peter explicitly includes the children of the hero of his servant on Pentecost as recipients of the promise of salvation. "This is the salvation that comes to you and your children." Also Paul's reference to baptism as the circumcision made without hands in Colossians 2:11 at least suggests that children are recipients of baptism as they were also recipients of the Old Testament sacrament of initiation circumcision. So we see that children are not excluded from the kingdom of God. The promise is also for them. And baptism is this -- the bringing of the promise to them. So dogmatically nothing speaks really against them being included. Another point in that debate is also that infant baptism is rooted in the need of the children to be saved and in the character of baptism to bring salvation. One of the problems I would say of the Baptist position is: Well, the children. Okay, they can't believe. Does that mean they can't be saved? And then they come up with: Well. You can't say that because who wants to say that, that a child cannot be saved because they can't believe. Well, they are already holy because they come from Christian parents. They are somehow included in the covenant. Then you suddenly have salvation outside of faith and outside of the promise of the Gospel by pure human descent. Now, if that does not distort the centrality of faith, I don't know what does. Oftentimes also you have then a kind of a devaluation of original sin. Then it says: Well, until the child reaches the age of accountability, sin is not really imputed to him or her. Well, there's nothing in Scripture that says that. Okay? I mean, that's a pure construct to avoid saying that they will be damned or that there is another way to salvation. Children are not born innocent. They are not innocent until a certain age of accountability. All men are by nature children of the wrath of God as Paul says in Ephesians 2:3, "And that which is born of the flesh is flesh" as Jesus says in John 3 Verse 6. That's the harsh message. And sometimes when people come to have their children baptized and you talk about them -- about original sin and that the child needs to be transferred out of the kingdom of the devil into the kingdom of God, they don't like to hear that. Because you look at the baby. And it is so sweet. And it is so innocent. And it's a new start. And all these possibilities are there. You know, you are reaching middle age. And things are kind of winding down you think. And there is not all of these possibilities. But here is this child. All of these possibilities. And you don't want to think of this child coming into this world with a huge baggage already. But this child has a huge baggage. Though this is not just bad news. Because the good news is it can get rid of it right now. And then you really have a start. And you really have a clean slate. But you are not naturally with a clean slate. And therefore, children are in need to be cleansed. Okay. So we said these things speak in favor of infant baptism. But what again about this central point: Well, they can't believe. Lutherans do say they can believe. Now, not all Lutherans anymore unfortunately. We have some quite prominent Lutherans in world Lutheranism that think: Well, no, we can't maintain that. And I read a PhD thesis done at the University of ***Tiebegan where the author actually claimed that Luther, if he had really thought things through, would be against infant baptism, which is kind of a thesis that is rather daring I would say. Why do we say that children can be baptized because they have faith? It is true that baptism and faith belong together and that baptism without faith is useless. So one of the main arguments of Baptists is the claim that infants cannot believe. But at the basis of such a thesis lies an understanding of faith that sees faith primarily psychologically. That is as a conscious trust in the promise of God that presupposes certain intellect, capabilities and especially selfconsciousness as it is not found in babies or very young children but can only be found later in life. Although the understanding of faith as trust in the promise is shared by Lutheranism, it has to be maintained that faith is foremost the receptacle by which the promise is grasped, created by the same word. Since Jesus receives children in the kingdom of God, one has to conclude that they have received the promise. And that includes faith if one does not want to state a different way to salvation without faith for children. That sounds an awful lot like kind of a dogmatic deduction. And in a way it is. But just for illustration, it is not just a deduction. In a story where Elizabeth meets Mary, it is said that the baby in Elizabeth's womb, John the Baptist, leaped for joy when his master comes to him in the womb of Mary. And that this is done by the Spirit. It's interesting that the Spirit can actually operate in this unborn child, in this fetus. The Spirit does not need a fully developed human consciousness to act on a human. To be filled by the Spirit cannot mean that the child is an unbelieving bearer of the Spirit. Just a mechanical way. So John the Baptist is filled with the Spirit in his mother's womb. So why cannot other children be filled with the Spirit, too, and have faith? The problem is really in a different understanding of faith. In a Baptist understanding is often seen as a conscious decision. And baptism is a -- an act of confession and obedience that follows a conversion experience, a decision. Okay. There again, the Word of God is seen as information and appeal and now you have to act upon it. But we said before that this is not what the Word of God is as a means of grace. It's not something that comes before you and now it's up to you. I give you the offer of God's grace. Now, sinner, what do you do? Kind of cliffhanger Gospel. The Gospel is Christ died for your sins. And your sins are forgiven. And this message then creates faith in you. Of course there are always people who say: Who cares? I don't care. I don't believe it. Okay. That's the mystery of unbelief. But his sins are not forgiven because you said yes. That you say yes means that the Holy Spirit has brought faith in you. That's the difference. Such a conversion experience you cannot find in infants. But the problem is if you see faith as this kind of a conscious designificance, you really cannot explain why a person who is asleep, for example, can believe or people who are in a coma or have Alzheimer's can believe. If you use these kind of extreme cases, you will realize that faith is something more than of which I am conscious. That faith is somewhere deeper, on a deeper level of my personality. And as there is faith, even if I become an Alzheimer patient and I know nothing anymore, I don't even know the name Jesus anymore, does that mean that my faith is gone? That this is it and too bad for you if you get Alzheimer's because then you go to hell? Nobody would say that. We would rather say that God still retains a relationship with this person, even if the mind goes blind or blank. So in that case, we are willing to say faith is more than what we know. Faith is more than what we are conscious of. Now, is it then so unbelievable and outrageous to say that in the case of a baby God can establish a relationship to this baby, give him grace and work faith in this baby, even though he does not have yet the intellectual abilities a child of a more mature age or an adult has? I think it is not outrageous to say something like that. Rather it shows, again, that what we are conscious of is less than what our faith really is. Our faith is really -- we really see only the tip of the iceberg. But there is more to it. That does not mean that an adult who says, "I don't believe anything," that we then can say, "Oh, well, you really do believe. It's just your consciousness is in unbelief. Subconsciously you are a Christian." No. Whoever denies Jesus is Lord does not have the Spirit. The child has to grow also in faith. And that's why we tell a child the Word of God. The faith that was implanted in holy baptism has to be nourished and sustained by the Word of God. The problem is not so much with infant baptism but the problem is when children are baptized and then they are starved to death spiritually by their parents. That's the problem. And that's a problem that cannot be remedied easily. And that's why we have to pray for the children and why we have to seek out the children in our congregations so that they are not starved to death. Of course in the liturgy of baptism we pledge parents and sponsors that they educate their children in a Christian way. But sometimes sad to say that does not happen. That's why you have to be careful, also, with the sponsors that according to human measures or what humans can know, that you don't make a mockery out of baptism. So can infants believe? Yes, they can believe. God can establish a relationship to them. He can open the ear in ways that we don't understand. And that's why we trust that if we get senile, God will still speak to us and sustain us in our faith. *** This text is being provided in a rough draft format. Communication Access Realtime Translation (CART) is provided in order to facilitate communication accessibility and may not be a totally verbatim record of the proceedings. ***