Infant Baptism and Salvation
Martin: Do you believe that all men are sinful and lost when they are born into this world? In other words, do infants need salvation in Christ?
John: Every member of the human race, without exception, possesses a corrupted nature, which is a source of actual sin, and is itself sin. By "nature" I mean that which is born in man, that which he has by birth. That there is an inborn corrupt state, from which sinful acts and dispositions flow, is evident from the sixth chapter of Luke, verses forty-three to forty-five: "There is no good tree that bringeth forth corrupt fruit . . . The evil man out of the evil treasure of his heart bringeth forth that which is evil." In the fifty-eighth Psalm, verse three, we read, "The wicked are estranged from the womb; they go astray as soon as they be born, speaking lies." This corrupt nature belongs to man from the first moment of his being, as we read in the fifty-first Psalm, verse five: "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me." Paul declares in Ephesians, the second chapter, the third verse, that all men are by nature children of wrath. These texts indicate that, first, sin is an inborn depravity of the heart of man, and second, because of this depravity, man is guilty and condemnable before God, and under His wrath. There is no exception; all are sinful and need salvation. [1]
Martin: I am glad to know that you have that kind of Scriptural understanding of the sin of man and of his need of salvation. Christ says to Nicodemus: "That which is born of flesh is flesh; and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Marvel not that I said unto thee, Ye must be born again." "Except a man be born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God." [2]
According to your doctrine, infants cannot be born again since they are not able to understand the Gospel. Do you, then, believe that infants have no possibility of being saved? In my view, that is the only possible conclusion from the baptistic doctrine.
John: No, we do not believe that infants are lost. Those who die in their infancy are saved by the atonement of Christ.
Martin: Don't you believe that we sinners become partakers of the blessings of Christ's atonement through faith, in the new birth?
John: We do, but children are saved directly by the atonement of Christ.
Martin: Then you have two entirely different ways of salvation: Infants and adults are alike sinful and lost. The adults are saved through faith and the new birth, but infants are saved without faith and without the new birth. How do you reconcile this doctrine of yours with the words of Christ which I quoted: all men are born of the flesh, and cannot enter into the kingdom of God without the new birth, or birth of water and the Spirit? Do you make these words of Christ null and void in the case of infants?
John: I don't want to reject any words of Christ, or the Bible, but I cannot understand how an infant can believe, as it is incapable of understanding the word of God. Repentance and faith belong together. Man must be convicted of his sins, pray for pardon, and believe the Gospel. "Faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ." [3] You have two different conceptions of coming to faith, one for the infants and another for the grown-ups.
Martin: I admit that I cannot understand how infants can believe. The regular order is the one shown by you; one must become a believer through repentance and faith in the Gospel. But although I don't understand how babes can believe, I take the words of Christ simply as they are. He says that infants receive the kingdom of God, and the Bible shows us no other way by which the kingdom can be received except through faith. To assume that the kingdom can be received without faith is to indulge our own speculations, without Scriptural warrant.
The simple meaning of the words of Christ is that no man, not even an infant, can be saved without being born of the water and the Spirit. If we deny them water, or baptism, they are not born of water; and being left without the first thing that belongs to entering into the kingdom of God, they are left outside of it. Thus by denying them baptism, we hinder them from coming to Jesus and into His kingdom, acting directly against His plain words.
John: What about the infants who die without baptism? According to your doctrine they are lost.
Martin: The Bible reveals to us nothing of the fate of infants who die without baptism. In general, we think that Martin Luther was right in saying: "Not lack of, but contempt for, the sacrament condemns. I hope that when little children are denied baptism without it being their own fault, and the command of God and prayer are not despised, the kind and merciful God will graciously remember them. Let their souls be left in the hands of and at the will of their heavenly Father, who, as we know, is merciful."
We cannot say more than this about infants who die without baptism, for God has not seen fit to reveal anything on them in His word. It seems to me that you reason something like this: Unbaptized infants cannot be lost. Infants cannot be born again because they cannot understand the Gospel. Therefore they must be saved directly through the atoning work of Christ.
The first premise of this reasoning is a thing of which we know nothing. Do you think that Christian doctrine can be based on an assumption that has no basis in the word of God?
John: Of course not. I have never thought that our doctrine at this point is based on such faulty reasoning.
Martin: I respect your honesty. Let us, then, lay aside the whole question of the fate of unbaptized infants. We must build our doctrine from what Scripture says, not from what it does not say.
If infants are saved by God, in some exceptional way unknown to us, we cannot build anything on such an exception. The regular God-ordained way of salvation is that man must be born of water and the Spirit in order to enter into the kingdom of God. And the plainly expressed will of Christ is that infants must be brought into the kingdom of God.
An interesting fact is, as I already have pointed out, that the idea of new birth through baptism is not new in Christianity. The Synagogue taught that a new birth takes place in baptism when a proselyte enters through it into the divine covenant. Nicodemus knew well the terminology of the Synagogue, for he was a "teacher in Israel." When Jesus spoke to him of being born of water he naturally understood these words as a reference to baptism. This, too, is a proof that Jesus meant baptism in speaking of being born of water. In order to enter into the kingdom of God a man must be baptized into remission of sins and receive the Holy Spirit.
I repeat, according to the expressed will of Christ, infants are brought to Him and into His kingdom through baptism. Through it they become His disciples. Afterward they must be taught to observe all things that He has commanded us.
John: Infants cannot have a conscious repentance and faith in Christ. Don't you think that such conscious conviction of sin and faith based on a personal experience of grace are necessary to all men? Or do you think that people who have been baptized as infants become true Christians by way of an unconscious gradual growth?
Martin: Those are good and pertinent questions, and I'm glad you brought them up.
Infants receive in baptism the adoption of God's children, and are washed from the guilt of their inborn sin-corruption. They are taken into the kingdom of grace, into a new relationship to God through Christ. The Holy Spirit is present in baptism and in the infant does the work that is possible in that phase of its growth. God deals with men as persons, not as things. His work is not mechanical and magical.
The infant cannot of course have a conscious conviction of its sinfulness, neither can it have a conscious experience of the grace and salvation of God in Christ. It cannot consciously trust in Christ and surrender to him. Its faith must be an unconscious faith, for Christ says that an infant can receive the kingdom of God, that is, have faith.
The meaning of baptism, however, is that the baptized person should consciously repent, experience salvation in Christ, believe in Him as his personal Savior, and give his heart and life to Him. When a person is baptized in infancy, these things must come to pass in his life after he has reached the age of discretion, just as in the Old Covenant those circumcised in their infancy had to have a conscious circumcision of their heart later, to love God above all things, to trust in Him, and obey Him. Infant circumcision and baptism are analogous in this respect too.
It is therefore necessary that every person baptized as a baby has a personal conscious experience of sin and grace, in order that the grace into which he has been taken in his infancy shall become to him a personally known and owned reality.
Although the baptistic doctrine of the meaning of baptism is wholly unscriptural, in their practical Christian work those who hold that view have often been more Scriptural than those who have practiced infant baptism. They have insisted on a personal conscience repentance and faith, or a real conversion, in the life of all people, and that is the reason why they have so many confessing Christians in their churches. Those who have practiced infant baptism, although their doctrine of baptism has been more Scriptural, have often neglected evangelism and even led people to assume that they are true Christians and saved just because they have been baptized, although they have no living faith and knowledge of Christ and do not follow Him, which, of course, is a horrible deception and fatal error.
Those who claim to be the children of the Evangelical Reformation, and regard the reformers as their fathers in that sense, have often failed to follow their teachings. Both Luther and Calvin teach that baptism does not save without a true personal faith and knowledge of Christ, for without it the meaning of baptism is not fulfilled in a person's life. Luther says in his Small Catechism that baptism "worketh forgiveness of sins, delivers from death and the devil, and confers everlasting salvation on all who believe, as the word and promise of God declare . . . It is not the water indeed that produces these effects, but the word of God, . . . and our faith which relies on the word of God . . ." Calvin says in his Institutes: "Baptism is not sanctified to us except by the word of promise received in faith . . . Being blind and unbelieving for a long time, we did not embrace the promise which had been given us in baptism; yet it . . . the promise itself, as it was from God, always remained steady, firm, and true . . . We confess, therefore, that during that time we received no advantage whatever from baptism, because we totally neglected the promise offered to us in it . . . Now, since, by the grace of God, we have begun to repent, we accuse our blindness and hardness of heart for our long ingratitude to His great goodness; yet we believe that the promise itself never expired, but, on the contrary, we reason in the following manner: By baptism God promises remission of sins, and will certainly fulfill the promise to all believers: the promise was offered to us in baptism; let us, therefore, embrace it by faith: it was long dormant by reason of our unbelief; now, then, let us receive it by faith." [4]
Both Luther and Calvin have the Scriptural view that God's promise and covenant in baptism is steady, firm, and true, whether a person believes or not, for God does not cease to be true if men are faithless. Both teach that baptism brings blessings and salvation only to those who believe in the Gospel. In its actual spiritual sense the new birth takes place through faith, and only believers are truly born-again people. Only in them the meaning of baptism is fulfilled. Unbelievers have not experienced and appropriated the saving grace, or have fallen from it. They do not live in it, but have turned away from it. Luther says that Abraham, Moses, Isaac, Gideon, and David were born-again believers, although they never were baptized, whereas unbelieving church members are unregenerate although they have been baptized. [5] Luther describes the way in which faith is born in grown-up people as follows:
"When a penitent and terrified conscience attains peace, consolation and joy from this Gospel, it is called faith. This faith justifies us before God. People must be diligently instructed that this faith cannot be born without serious and true repentance and terror of conscience before God . . . This must be continually emphasized in order that people would not fall into self-deceit and assume that they have faith although they are far from it. . . For true faith must bring with it consolation and joy toward God. Such a consolation and joy cannot be felt where a person has no contrition and terror, as Christ says . . . ' The Gospel is preached to the poor.'" [6]
These words do not apply to those alone who have fallen to unbelief. They also apply to such people who have been religious from their childhood, and have not fallen into an overtly worldly and sinful life. They, too, must come to know sin and grace in an experienced way in order that the meaning of baptism be fulfilled in them. In this way their repentance and faith, which was unconscious when they were baptized as infants, becomes a conscious repentance and faith.
John: I am glad for your emphasis on evangelism and the necessity of an experienced repentance and faith. When you speak of an unconscious and conscience repentance and faith, don't you use these terms in two wholly different meanings, and thus run into contradiction? How can a person repent and believe unconsciously?
Martin: If I were to think of that matter according to my reason I would admit that you're right. But I do not want to be led by my natural reason but by the word of God. Christ says that infants can receive the kingdom of God. Since the kingdom of God can be received only by repentance and faith, infants must be able to have repentance and faith. It is, however, obvious that they cannot have it consciously. [7] The Bible also teaches that all men should repent and believe in a conscious manner. This applies to those, too, who have been baptized as infants. The only possible conclusion that I see is that they must have a conscious repentance and faith when they come to the age of discretion and that the meaning of baptism is so fulfilled in them.
What I said applies, naturally, only to those extremely few cases in which people do not fall from grace, but remain godly from their childhood. The great majority of people fall from grace to unbelief and sinful life, and they must, of course, repent and believe the Gospel. Do you have any better explanation of this matter, if you take seriously the words of Christ that infants are able to receive the kingdom of God, and that all men should repent and believe the Gospel?
John: I guess I don't. But isn't it largely due to infant baptism that true evangelism is so often neglected and even opposed in churches which practice it? It seems to me that the leaders of our denomination are largely justified in saying that infant baptism is responsible for sending more people to hell than any other cause. Isn't it a dreadful thing to baptize a baby and let him grow up believing that by baptism he has been saved and is on his way to heaven, although he knows nothing of an experienced repentance and faith? [8] It seems to me that the evil effects of infant baptism are a strong argument against it. It leads people to a superstitious confidence in an outward rite as possessed of regenerating efficacy, and destroys the Church as a spiritual body, by merging it in the nation and the world. [9]
Martin: It's true that there is a great amount of false reliance on baptism. But I cannot believe that that is the fault of infant baptism, which is clearly based on the teachings of the New Testament, particularly of Christ. Infant baptism in itself is a good and gracious institution. Referring to the words of Peter, "The promise is unto you and your children," [10] Calvin says aptly, "It ought to be admitted . . . beyond all controversy that God is so kind and liberal to his servants as . . . to appoint even the children who shall descend from them to be enrolled among His people." [11] The fact that there is much false reliance on baptism received in infancy is not the fault of the baptism but of a false teaching. People have a tendency to use all possible ideas in their excuse mechanism against personal repentance and salvation. But when the word of God is preached in the power of the Holy Spirit, and with the purpose of leading people to a conscious repentance and faith, infant baptism has proved to be no hindrance. On the contrary, it has proved to be advantageous. Recently a pastor who has done evangelistic work both among Baptists and pedobaptists told me that, according to his experience, people are more easily converted among the pedobaptists. Work among them is more hopeful.
Don't you think that Gospel preaching, as an ordinance of Christ, should be always practiced and maintained in the Church?
John: Of course, it should. Why do you ask such a question?
Martin: I suppose you know as well as I do that in the sphere of Christendom the wrong kind of preaching and teaching has sent more people to hell than any other human cause. Don't you think that it would be better to stop all the preaching in the churches, because most of it is harmful from the point of view of salvation?
John: Don't make fun of me. I suppose you mean that a good thing can be misused, and that this misuse and its harmful effects are no valid reason for abandoning the whole thing.
Martin: Exactly. I have tried to show that infant baptism is based on the expressed will and plain words of Christ, and as such it is a good gift of God. The Lord's Supper too is misused but the fact that most people receive it in a wrong way, without a true faith, would not justify its abandonment.
If we wish to be obedient to the plain teachings of Christ, we must baptize the babes of Christian people. But at the same time we should teach that all people who have received baptism in their infancy should have a personal experience of sin and grace, and receive the Holy Spirit in a definite and experienced way. Only so can a person have a true saving knowledge of Christ as his Savior and power to follow Him and live for Him.
John: I agree with what you said in your last statement but it seems to me that your church, and the churches practicing infant baptism in general, do not so believe or teach in practice. The pastors of these churches seem to assume that the young people who have been baptized as infants are Christians, born-again people, when they come to confirmation instruction, although most of them have no life in God in them. It seems to me that the coercion in Sunday and confirmation schools to get children and young people to heed the word is because they do not truly have life in faith. Anyone born of God loves the Lord and His word and the things of God, and does not need such coercing. Infant baptism seems to have led most pastors to deal with unbelievers as though they were believers. The same holds true of the adult church members. If they go to church and lead a decent life they are assumed to be Christians, although they have no clear witness of the Spirit either by mouth or life.
Martin: I admit that you're right in most of what you have said. The sad fact is that so many pastors do not divide the word of God aright, giving to each person the share of it that belongs to him. Perhaps the most horrible deception and error that person can make is to treat an unbeliever and unregenerate person as a Christian and so confirm him in his walk on the way which leads to destruction. The word of God should be rightly divided, so that unbelievers would be dealt with as unbelievers, convicted sinners as convicted sinners, and believers as believers. No medical doctor would mix together all medicines and give the same concoction to all his patients, without regard to their condition and need. Nevertheless this is what most ministers do. The right division of the word of God is rare ...
[1] Augustus Hopkins Strong, Systematic Theology (5th ed., revised and enlarged; New York: A.C. Armstrong and Son, 1896), pp. 299f., 449ff.
[2] John 3:5-7, 3, 5.
[3] Rom. 10:17.
[4] John Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Religion, trans. John Allen (7th Am. ed., Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Christian Education), II, p. 596.
[5] The Weimar edition of Luther's works: vol. 12, p. 590; vol. 27, p. 190; vol. 47, pp. 40, 45.
[6] Luther, Unterricht der Visitatoren, 1528, Weimar ed., vol. 26, pp. 202f.
[7] Calvin, Institutes, op. cit., pp. 620-622, says to the point: "It is necessary for to be engrafted into Him, that we may be rescued from the bondage of death. But how, it is inquired, are infants regenerated, who have no knowledge either of good or evil? We reply, that the work of God is not yet without existence because it is not observed or understood by us ... I would beg them to inform me, what danger can result from our affirming that they already receive some portion of that grace, of which they will ere long enjoy the full abundance ... As the Lord, therefore, will illuminate them [infants who are baptized and die young] with the full splendor of his countenance in heaven, why may He not also, if such be His pleasure, irradiate them with some faint rays of it in the present life; ... Not that I would hastily affirm them to be endued with the same faith which we experience in ourselves, or at all to possess similar knowledge of faith."
[8] William L. Pettingill, "The Evils of Infant Baptism," in The Voice, official organ of the Independent Fundamental Churches of America, September, 1945, reprinted by Dr. J. Oliver Buswell, Jr., in The Bible Today (National Bible Institute, Shelton College, New York), p. 2.
[9] Strong, op. cit., pp. 537ff.
[10] Acts 2:39.
[11] Calvin, Institutes, book IV, ch. XVI, sec. xv, op. cit., pp. 617f.
[Read more selections from "Scriptural Baptism" by Uuras Saarnivaara]